Opening For White According To Anand 1.e4, Vol. 5

Opalill
lor ita
accord I
1.84
~
Clless Stars
't'iUliptJP
Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
Editorial Panel:
Technical Editor:
Translation by:
GM R.Ovetchkin, 1M S.Klimov,
1M S.Soloviov
1M Semko Semkov
GM Evgeny Ermenkov
Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes
Cover design by Kalojan Nachev
Copyright 2005 by Alexander Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov
Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia
ISBN 954 8782 44 8
Opening for White According to
Anand l.e4
Book V
1.e4 Miscellaneous
l.e4 b6 2.d4
l.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3
l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5
l.e4 e6 2.d4 without 2 ... d5
Alexander Khalifman
14th World Chess Champion
Other CHESS STARS books
Repertoire books:
Opening for White According to Kramnik 1.Nf3 by Khalifman
Volume 1: King's Indian, Old Indian, Anti-Gruenfeld
Volume 2: Anti-Nimzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango
Volume 3: Maroczy, English (1...c5), Modern, Dutch
Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav
Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined
Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman
Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 ... a6
Volume 2: Ruy Lopez with 3 ... a6
Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1...c6, 2 ... g6
Volume 4: 1 ... d6, 1 ... g6
Next book:
Volume 6: The French Defence
Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman
Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti
Current theory and practice series:
1. The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, Second edition
2. How to Get the Edge Against the Gruenfeld by Sakaev
3. Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov
4. Latest Trends in the Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran by Sakaev and Semkov
Games collections
Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov
Capablanca. Games 1901 - 1224, Second Revised Edition
Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939, Second Revised Edition
Alexander Alekhine. Games
Volume 1: 1902 - 1922
Volume 2: 1923 - 1934
Volume 3: 1935 - 1946
Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games by Soloviov, 556 pages + photos
Super Tournaments 2003, 456 pages + colour photos
Shirov's One Hundred Wins by Soloviov 316 pages, interviews,
biography, photos, hardcover
Leko's One Hundred Wins by S. Soloviov 340 pages, biography, colour
and b/w photos
More details at www.chess-stars.com
Contents
Preface ....... , ............. '" ......................... 7
Part 1. Baker's Defence; Owen's Defence
l.e4 various; L.a6 2.d4; L.b6 2.d4
1 various; L.a6 2.d4 .................................. 10
2 L.b6 2.d4 various; 2 ... i.b7 3.i.d3 4:Jf6; 3 ... e6 4.4:Jf.3
without 4 ... c5 ....................................... 24
3 L.b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.4:Jf.3 c5 ....................... 47
Part 2. Nimzowitsch Defence
1. e4 4:Jc6 2. 4:Jf.3
4 2 ... 4:Jf6; 2 ... 5 ......................................... 72
5 2 ... d5 ............................................... 77
6 2 ... g6 ............................................... 88
7 2 ... d6 ............................................... 96
Part 3. Alekhine's Defence
1.e4 4:Jf6 2.e5
8 2 ... 4:Jg8 ............................................. 118
9 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 various; 3 ... e6; 3 ... d6 4.4:Jf.3 various ......... 125
10 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 4:Jc6 ............................ 140
11 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 de ............................... 150
12 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 g6 ............................... 168
13 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 4:Jc6 .................. 199
14 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 c6 ................... 219
15 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 e6 ................... 233
Part 4.
1.e4 e6 2.d4
16 various without 2 ... d5 .............................. 244
Index of Variations ..................................... 253
5
Preface
Dear readers,
You are now holding in your hands the fifth volume of our series
"Opening for White According to Anand - I.e4". This book is de-
voted to openings (to put it mildly ... ) rather exotic. In fact, most of
the chess-professionals consider the systems that we have analyzed
in this volume as simply incorrect. It is maybe the Alekhine De-
fence, which can be spared such definite evaluation, but this would
be probably only due to the reputation of this outstanding chess-
genius.
It is hardly worth denying that Black would eventually fail to
equalize after moves like I. .. a6, or L.b6. Nevertheless ... the chess-
players, belonging to the older generations, definitely remember
the famous game Karpov - Miles (Skara 1980) l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5
and ... no, not 1-0 after 20 moves, but just the opposite - after 15
moves Black was already slightly better, after 25 moves Miles was
clearly dominant and White resigned on move 46. Naturally, all that
does not prove that the opening l.e4 a6 is quite correct, but still it
clarifies that neither the win, nor the opening advantage is irrevo-
cably guaranteed even to the best players in the world. White needs
some precise knowledge and energetic play to maintain his advan-
tage in these somewhat inferior openings.
This small introduction should tell you that the author has had
serious problems collecting practical examples (according to
Anand ... ) and elsewhere at a really high level, in the process of
writing this volume. The present theoretical material was not of
much help either, because all these openings had never been ana-
lyzed thoroughly. It became necessary to systematize the available
material and to give precise recommendations to White after the
numerous orders of moves that Black had at his disposal in these
rare openings.
I am not so optimistic about the eventual evaluation, which this
book might deserve by my colleagues - grandmasters. It would
hardly be as superb as the reviews of the previous volumes. More-
over, some ofthem might even pay no attention to it and that would
be easily understandable. White presently has so many problems
to solve, for example in the Marshall Counterattack, or in the Sicil-
ian-Sveshnikov, so why bother about the fine points of the Owen's
Defence (1.e4 b6), which is being played so seldom anyway?
7
Meanwhile, this book is addressed not only to grandmasters and
even least of all to them. Many less experienced players have en-
countered opponents at club-level who solve their opening problems
once and for all, by avoiding the endless complicated lines of the
Ruy Lopez, or the Sicilian Defence and instead respond to l.e4 with
l...lDc6 (l...b6, l...a6, l...lDf6) and take care only about all immedi-
ate refutation attempts? The author has written this book for these
particular players with the hope that it might be really useful for
them. I would not venture to guarantee you winning your games
with White, but you are going to have the opening advantage - be
sure about that!
A Khalifman
14th World Chess Champion
P.S. This book has included, in a separate part, some lines after
l.e4 e6 2.d4 (without 2 ... d5). The author considers that the French
defence deserves a volume of its own - that is l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, as for
the lines, in which Black refrains from 2 ... d5 - that is " .oh, see the
first passages of this introduction.
8
Part 1
l.e4 - Miscellaneous
1.e4 b6 2.d4
In the first chapter we will
analyze some quite strange
moves for Black: 1. .. f5, 1. .. g5
(Basman Defence), I. .. a6
(Baker's Defence). Only the last
variation has a somewhat sen-
sible idea - to follow with 2 ... b5
and to develop the bishop to
the b7 -square. Such enlarged
fianchetto is a bit too risky for
the early stages of the opening
and White achieves a substantial
advantage.
There is also another possibil-
ity for Black - 1. .. b6 (Owen's
Defence) with the similar idea-
to develop the bishop to the b7-
square. It is much more difficult
for White to maintain a stable
edge after that, since Black has
not weakened his queenside with
the move b7 -b5 and he has not
lost additional time to develop
his bishop (the a7 -a6-move).
Black's most logical plan for
the development of his pieces:
l.e4 b6 2.d4 .ltb7 3 . .ltd3 e6 (pre-
paring c7 -c5) 4.1ZJf3 c5 5.c3 lZJf6
is dealt with in Chapter 3, while
the rest of Black's possibilities
are analyzed in chapter two.
9
Chapter 1 1.e4
L.a6
This move became gradually
popular after GM Anthony
Miles's sensational win with
Black against Anatoly Karpov at
the European Team Champion-
ship in Skara in1980.
The moves 1...h5 and 1.. .a5
hardly deserve any serious at-
tention, since they do not con-
tribute at all to Black's develop-
ment, and he is not fighting for
the centre either. After 2.d4
White has a clear advantage,
because no matter what popular
scheme Black might try to em-
ploy - his first move will defi-
nitely be premature mildly
speaking ...
It is obviously wrong for
Black to play 1...f5 2.exf5 ct:Jf6
because White remains
10
with an extra pawn and better
development.
White has no problems to
claim the edge after: 1...ct:Ja6
2.ct:Jc3 c6 3.i..xa6 bxa6 4.l2:lf3 g6
5.0-0 i..g7 6.d4 ct:Jf6, Comp Me-
phisto Genius - Van Geet, The
Hague 1997, 7.e5 ct:Jd5 (7 ..
8.h3 ct:Jh6 9.i..f4) 8.ct:Je4 0-0 9.
c4 ct:Jb6 (9 ... ct:Jc7 10.'b3; 9 ...
f5 10.l2:lc5 ct:Jb6 11. ,c2) 10.b3
d5 11.exd6 exd6 12.i..a32, and
Black's bishops are rather pas-
sive, while he has plenty of weak
pawns to worry about.
After 1...g5 2.d4 Black usually
follows with 2 ... i..g7 or 2 ... h6, but
some other moves have been
tried in practice too:
2 ... ct:Jf6? - is a rather strange
move, because after 3.e5 Black's
knight will have to go to the
centre of the board. It will come
under attack just like in the
Alekhine Defence, meanwhile
Black will lose his g5-pawn in the
process;
In answer to 2 ... e6, it is worth
for White to try to exploit the
weakening of Black's kingside
immediately with: 3.h4!? gxh4
4. 'h5! and Black must defend
very precisely against the on-
coming attack. The only game
played in this line followed with:
4 ... .Jie7 5.cbf3 c5 6.ltJe5 t'ta5+ 7.
.Jid2 t'tb6 8. t'txf7 + 9. t'tg7
t'txb2, Kuusela - Kiltti, Tampere
1995. Now after 10.dxc5! Black
either gets checkmated, or he
loses plenty of material, for ex-
ample: 10 ... .Jiffi (10 ... 1l . .Jif4
.Jiffi 12.ltJxd7+-) 11. t'tf8+ 12.
'd6+ 13.ltJc4 'xa1 (13 ...
'd414.t'tf8+ 15 . .Jia5+-) 14.
t'tf8+ 15 . .Jia5+ b6 16.cxb6+
axb6 (White checkmates too af-
ter: 16 ... 17.ltJd6+ 18.
t'txc8+ 19 . .Jib4+ 20.
'c7+) 17 . .Jixb6+ 18.'xc8+
Black thus suffers
the punishment for his terrible
play in the opening;
There are some games in
which Black has tried the quite
extravagant move 2 ... e5?,
against which White should bet-
ter continue his piece-develop-
ment with 3.ltJf3 and then for
example: 3 ... exd4 4 . .Jixg5 .Jib4+
5.c3 dxc3 6.ltJxc3 and White's
lead in development is over-
whelming;
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ltJ{3
2 ... 3.ltJc3 (This is White's
calmest move, but it is also very
good for him to play 3 . .Jixg5, al-
though after 3 ... c5 the game
might get too complicated.) 3 ... c5
(About 3 ... h6 - see 2 ... h6; the
other moves for Black enable
White to dominate in the centre
completely. He has additionally
a powerful pressure on the king-
side, which was weakened con-
siderably with Black's first
move: 3 ... e6 4.ltJge2 h5 5 . .te3
d6 6. 'd2 g4 7.0-0-0 a6 8.h3
Vouldis - Papastavropoulos, Ath-
ens 1996, or 3 ... c6 4 . .tc4 b5
5 . .Jib3 a5 6.a3 Sl..a6, Ginsburg -
Frey, Deizisau 1998, 7 . .txg5.)
4.Sl..e3 'b6, Kottenhahn - Zoel-
ler, Giessen 1997 (After 4 ... t'ta5
5.ltJge2 cxd4 6.ltJxd4 the posi-
tion resembles the Accelerated
Dragon variation - l.e4 c5 2.ltJf3
g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 .tg7 5.ltJc3
- except that Black's pawn is on
the g5-square instead of on g6.
This is definitely in favour of
White, since he can attack much
easier on the kingside - the f5
and h5-squares are very weak
now.) 5.ltJd5 t'ta5+ 6 . .Jid2 t'td8
7 . .Jic3 cxd4 8 . .txd4 and White
enjoys a total control over the
centre and his lead in develop-
ment is overwhelming;
2 ... h6 3.4:lc3 Sl..g7 4 . .Jic4 c5 (Af-
ter the rest of the moves for
Black - White can easily exploit
the weakening of Black's king-
side with quite natural moves,
for example: 4 ... e6 5 . .te3 ltJe7
6.t'te2 d6 7.0-0-0 a6 8.h4 gxh4
11
Chapter 1
9.ttJf3 ttJg6 10 . ..ltd3 ttJc6 1l.e5
Smolyaninov - Khabarov, Da-
gomys 2003, Black lags in devel-
opment considerably and he
can hardly bring his king to
safety, while in case of: 4 ... d6
5.ttJge2 ttJc6 6.0-0 e5 7. dxe5
ttJxe5 8 . ..ltb3 ttJf6 9.f4 gxf4, Mor-
diglia - Faraoni, Asti 1995, the
simple line 10.Ji.xf4 'f!1e7 1l.ttJg3
leads to a position, which is
much more typical for the King's
Gambit - White leads in devel-
opment, the f-file is opened, the
f5 and h5-squares are very weak,
moreover White has not sacri-
ficed anything whatsoever.
White maintains a considerable
lead in development too after:
5 ... ttJf6 6.0-0 c6 7.f4 Alvarez -
Theunisse, corr. 1992.) 5.Ji.e3
ttJc6 (Mter 5 ... cxd4 6 . ..ltxd4 ..ltxd4
7. 'f!1xd4 ttJf6 8.ttJd5 Sheldrick -
Williams, Mingara 2000, Black's
kingside is totally destroyed;
while in case of 5 ... 'f!1a5 6.ttJge2
ttJf6, Kogge - Millgramm, Pin-
neb erg 2000, White fortifies his
centre with 7.f3 cxd4 8.ttJxd4 d6
9. 'f!1d2 and transposes to a po-
sition from the Dragon variation
of the Sicilian Defence - l.e4 c5
2.ttJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJf6
5.ttJc3 g6 6 . ..lte3 Ji.g7 7.f3 - in
which Black's kingside has been
weakened.) 6.ttJge2 ttJa5 (This
chase of the white bishop con-
sumes too much time.) 7.'f!1d3
cxd4 8 . ..ltxd4 ttJf6, Ward - Elieff,
Canada 1996 (The exchange of
White's light squared bishop
does not help Black much: 8 ...
12
ttJxc4 9. 'f!1xc4 ttJf6 10.e5 tLlg4
1l.e6; 9 ... ..ltxd4 10.tLlxd4 tLlf6
11.h4 and White leads in devel-
opment and he has a powerful
initiative in the centre and on
the kingside.) 9.e5 ttJh5 (in an-
swer to 9 ... ttJg4, White should
better follow with 10.e6 and he
wins a pawn preserving a huge
lead in development.) 10 . ..ltd5.
White's pieces are centralized, he
leads in development and he has
excellent prospects for active
play in the centre and on the
kingside. White's advantage is
overwhelming.
2.d4
2 ... b5
Mter 2 ... d5 3.exd5 'f!1xd5 4.
tLlc3 there arises a position from
the Scandinavian Defence with
the strange early move a6; about
2 ... d6 3.ttJc3 - see Chapter 1, vol-
ume4.
In case of 2 ... e6 3.tLlf3, Black
has plenty of possibilities, but
they usually lead only to trans-
positions: 3 ... b5 4.Ji.d3 - see
2 ... b5; 3 ... d5 4.tLlc3 - see l.e4 e6
2.d4 d5 3.ttJc3 a6; 3 ... c5 - leads
to the Sicilian Defence; 3 ... tLlf6
4.e5 - transposes to the Alekhine
Defence with a move like e6,
which is hardly the best and also
with the inclusion of the strange
a6?! - move.
Black has also tried the fol-
lowing moves in this position:
2 ... h6 3.c4 cS (The attempt by
Black to play symmetrically with
3 ... g6 4.ctJc3 b6 S . .lte3 .ltg7, Tid-
man - Saujani, London 1999,
leads after 6.f4 to a position in
which White enjoys complete
control over the centre; in an-
swer to 3 ... bS, Helin - Marder,
Stockholm 2000, White should
simply capture 4.cxbS and he re-
mains with a solid extra pawn.)
4.ctJf3 cxd4 (after 4 ... gS S.dxcS
.ltg7 6.ctJc3 ctJc6 7 . .lte3 ctJf6 8.
ctJd2 Rotman - Basman, Lon-
don 1994, Black has no compen-
sation for the pawn) S.ctJxd4 e6
6.ctJc3 7 . .lte3 ctJf6 8 . .lte2
Wortel - Basman, Amsterdam
1996. There arose a position,
which is typical for the Paulsen
variation of the Sicilian Defence
(l.e4 cS 2.ctJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4.ttJxd4 a6 S.c4) except that Black
has played the move h6, which
is hardly the best;
2 ... cS 3.dxcS (It is cal-
mer and safer for Black to play
3 ... e6 4 . .lte3 S.ctJc3 .ltxcS
6 . .ltxcS The arising pawn-
structure is more typical for the
Sicilian Defence and the early
exchange of the dark squared
bishops enables White to either
force the weakening of Black's
kingside, or to prevent him from
castling. 7. - it is possi-
l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ctJ{3 !!i.b7 4.iLd3
bly better for Black to play: 7 ... g6
8.ctJf3 ctJc6 9 . .i.d3 bS 1O.0-0 and
his queen is active, but both his
flanks are weakened consider-
ably - 8.ctJf3 bS 9.ii.d3 b4 1O.ctJe2
.ltb7 11.0-0 ctJc6 12. d6 13.
a3; 12 ... eS 13. ctJge7 14.a3
Hodl - Sell, Germany 2000.
White has excellent prospects on
the queenside, because of the
exposed position of the enemy
king. Black has hardly any
counterplay.) 4.ctJc3 (The
line 4 ... ctJf6 S.i.d3 e5, was played
in the game Gonzalvo Lara -
Cerrajeria, Zaragoza 1999. Now,
it looks very attractive for White
to follow with 6.i.g5!?, for ex-
ample after: 6 ... .lte7 White exerts
a powerful pressure: 7.ttJge2
8.ii.xf6 .ltxf6 9.ttJd5 ii.d8
10.0-0 d6 l1.b4 12.c4 0-0
13.f4; or 6 ... .ltxc5 7.ii.xf6 gxf6
8.a3 9. and Black's
bishop pair does not compensate
his weaknesses on the kingside
and in the centre. It is even
worse for him to play: 8 ... ctJc6?
9.b4 ttJxb4 10.axb4 11.
ctJge2+-, or 8 ... 9.ctJd5 !!i.xf'2+
5.ii.e3 (5 ...
6.a3 7.ctJd5+-; 6 ... 7.b4
8.ctJd5+-)
This move enables White to
paralyze Black's queenside com-
pletely: 7 ... e6. This is Black's
only move. (7 ... b5 8.ctJd5
9.c3 ii.b7 10.ttJb6+-; 7 ... ctJf6 8.
ii.b6 9.ctJh3+-; 8 ... 9.ctJf3
10.ii.c4+-; 8 ... 9.ttJd5
ctJxd5 10.exd5
8.ii.b6 9.ctJge2 ..It.c5 (after
13
Chapter 1
9 ... d6 10.CZ'ld4 1l.0-0-0 .ib4+ 7.CZ'lc3 .ib7 S.O-O i..xc3 9.
White's lead in development is
overwhelming) 10.CZ'la4 d6 (l0 ...
i..e7 .. d4+-) 1l . .txc5 dxc5
12.CZ'lb6 J::i.a7 White wins
at least a pawn.
3.CZ'lf3
3 ... i..b7
3 ... e6 4 . .td3 c5 (about 4 ... .tb7
5.0-0 - see 3 ... .tb7) 5.c3 and now:
5 ... .tb7 6.0-0 - see 3 ... .tb7;
5 ... d6 6.0-0 ltJd7 (after 6 ... CZ'lc6
7.l:i.e1 e5 8.a4 l:(bS 9.axb5 axb5
10.h3 i..d7 11..te3 '!fic7 12.ltJbd2
there arises a pawn-structure
which is typical for the Ruy
Lopez, except that White has
several extra tempi, Thallinger
- Wiedner, Austria 1994) 7.a4 c4
S . .ic2 l:i.bS 9.axb5 axb5
CZ'le7, Anagnostopoulos - I vanets,
Heraklio 1996, and here the best
way for White to exploit his huge
lead in development is to play:
1l.b3! cxb3 12 . .id3 and Black
must push his b5-pawn forward
in order not to lose it, meanwhile
White continues with his devel-
opment and Black's king is
rather unsafe in the centre;
Black can reduce the tension
in the centre with: 5 ... cxd4 6.cxd4
14
bxc3 '!fic7, Pucovski - Rajak, Yu-
goslavia 2001, but White main-
tains a steady pressure in the
centre and on the queenside:
10.a4! ltJf6 (it is worse for Black
to play: 10 ... d5 1l.exd5 .ixd5 12.
axb5, as well as 10 ... '!fixc3 11.
.if4 bxa4 12. l';t'bl+-; 1l ... CZ'lc6 12.
axb5) bxa4 12.e5 CZ'ld5
13.c4 CZ'lb6 14.c5 ltJd5 15.CZ'lg5;
After 5 ... c4, White has a clear
plan for actions on the queen-
side: 6 . .ic2 .tb7 7.0-0 ltJf6 S.
l:i.e1 d6 9.b3 10.bxc4 bxc4
11. ltJbd7 12.ltJbd2 lIc8 13.
l:i.b1 .ie7 14.ltJxc4 iLaS, Riefner
- Unger, Bayern 2002 (l4 ... .ixe4
15.ltJxd6+ iLxd6 16.iLxe4 CZ'lxe4
17. '!fixc3 lS. '!fig4 c;t>f8 19.
i..f4; lS ... g6 19.iLh6). Now,
White could have preserved a
solid extra pawn with: 15.ltJa3!
d5 16.'!fixa6 CZ'lxe4 (It is hardly
better for Black to try: 16 ... .txa3
17 . .ixa3 CZ'lxe4 lS . .ixe4 dxe4 19.
ltJg5, because he remains a
pawn down and his king is vul-
nerable. He has no compensation
for the pawn after: 16 ...
17.e5, while in case of: 16 ... dxe4
17.CZ'lb5 lS.'!fixc6 iLxc6 19.
ltJa7 Black will have to defend
a very difficult endgame.) 17.
ltJb5 '!fidS lS.iLxe4 dxe4 19.1tJd2
CZ'lf6 20.iLa3.
4.i.d3
We will analyze now: a) 4 ...
CZ'lf6 and b) 4 ... e6.
Black has also tried in prac-
tice:
4 ... d6 - White can now exploit
the weaknesses on Black's
queenside with quite natural
moves: 5.a4! b4 6.c3 c5 7.0-0 a5
B.i.b5+ i.c6 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.
Y;;rxdB+ ll.tLle5 and Black
must fight for the draw in an
endgame with weak queenside
pawns, moreover his pieces on
the kingside are not developed,
Comas Fabrego - R.Valles, Spain
199B;
4 ... g6 5.a4! b4, Ferret - Gasch,
Internet 1996 (it worse for Black
to play 5 ... bxa4 6.0-0 tLlf6, Ga-
brielson - N agley, IECC 1998,
because White dominates in the
centre and he has excellent at-
tacking chances after: 7.e5 tLld5
B.i.e4!, for example: B ... tLle3
9.fxe3 10.tLlg5!+-; B ... Y;;re8
9.tLlg5! f5 9 ... h6 10.
tLlxf7+-; 9 ... tLlb4 10J:Ixa4
1l.tLlxe4) 6.0-0 (After 6 ...
tLlf6 7.e5 tLld5 9.tLlg5,
Black will hardly manage to de-
fend against White's numerous
threats and particularly against
10.Y;;rf.3.) 7.c3 bxc3 B.tLlxc3 tLlc6 9.
i.e3. White's centre is very pow-
erful and he enjoys a much bet-
ter development.
a) 4 .. tLlf6
l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.CiJ/3 !il.b7 4 . .1l.d3
5.CiJbd2!
This move is a useful prophy-
lactic against the move c7 -c5,
which White will counter now
with dxc5, followed by e5 and
tLle4. He saves a tempo in this
fashion for the move c2-c3 in
comparison to line b.
5 ... e6
In answer to 5 ... e5, which was
tested in several games, White
should better capture the pawn
6.dxc5 Y;;rc7 (6 ... e6 7.e5 tLld5 8.
tLle4) 7.b4 CiJc6 B.a3 and Black
has no compensation.
6.0-0 c5
Black has no other active
counterplay left.
About 6 ... i.e7 7 . .1:i.e1- see 4 ...
e6 5.0-0 iLe7 6.CiJbd2 CiJf6 7.lIel.
6 ... d5 7.e5 CiJfd7 (If 7 ... CiJe4,
Williamson - Schaeperkoetter,
IECG 2001, then the simple line
8. Y;;re2 CiJxd2 9.i.xd2 c5 10.dxc5
1l.b4 i.e7 12.a4 enables
White to exert a powerful pres-
sure on the queenside.) 8.tDb3
e5 9.dxe5 tDxc5 (It is worse for
Black to play 9 ... CiJe6 10.iLe3!
CiJdxe5 11.CiJxe5 CiJxe5 12.i.d4
tLle6 13.c3 ::tcB 14.f4 tDxd4 15.
exd4, because White remains
with an overwhelming advan-
tage in the centre and he can cre-
ate threats on both sides on the
board, Dibley - Schaeperkoetter,
mCG 2001.) 10.CiJxc5 i.xc5 11.e3
tDc6, Flear - Rossi, Asti 1997,
and now the simplest way for
White to exploit the weaknesses
on Black's queenside is to play:
12.b4 i.e7 13.a4t.
15
Chapter 1
6 ... d6 - enables White to seize
the initiative on the queenside:
7.a4 b4 (It is worse for Black to
try 7 ... bxa4 8.c3 i.e7, Raisa -
Kivisto, Finland 1994, because
after the simple line:
10. "c2 White maintains a
powerful pressure over the whole
board.) 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 4Jd5
10.4Je4 i.e7 4Jd7, Bratic
- Nurkic, Neum 2003. Now, af-
ter the aggressive line: 12.c4
bxc3 13.bxc3 4Jc5 14.4Jxc5 i.xc5
15.i.d2 there arises a position
in which Black cannot complete
his development easily, since af-
ter: 15 ... 0-0 White plays 16.
while in case of 15 ... h6
White maintains his
space advantage and he has a
powerful pressure on the queen-
side.
7.dxc5 i..xc5 8.e5 4Jd5 9.
4Je4 i.e7
It is quite dubious for Black
to play: 9 ... "c7 10.4Jxc5
1l.a3 Tripoteau - Delaire,
Fouesnant 2000, because White
remains with the two bishop ad-
vantage and dominates in the
centre.
10.a4 b4
After 10 ... 4Jb4 1l.i.g5!
White manages to trade
favourably the dark squared
bishops.
1l.c4! bxc3
It is worse for Black to play
1l ... 4Jb6, because after 12.:tel
White controls the centre and he
has excellent piece coordination.
16
12.bxc3 0-0, Faibisovich -
Frog, St. Petersburg 1993. (After
12 ... 4Jc6 13.i.a3 White's knight
reaches the wonderful d6-square
and he maintains a powerful
pressure on the queenside, Fritz
6 - Wege, Kuppenheim 2000;
it is hardly any better for Black
to try here: 12 ... f5 13.exf6 4Jxf6
14.4Jxf6+ i.xf6 15.4Jg5 Burlant
- N agley, IEee 2003, because
White preserves a huge lead in
development and a strong initia-
tive on the kingside.) 13 . .l:!bl
(13 ... i..c6 14.4Jd4) 14.4Jd6
i.c6 15.i.c2 f5 (in case of 15 ...
i.xd6 16.exd6 "a5, White plays
17.c4! 4Jf6 - Black loses after
17 ... 4Jc3? 18.i..d2+- - 18.i.b2
and Black has no compensation
for White's two powerful bish-
ops) 16."d4. Black cannot ac-
tivate his pieces effectively.
White's excellent knight on d6
paralyzes Black's forces and the
exchange of that knight with
Black's dark squared bishop
would cause a great weakening
of the dark squares. It is not
clear at all how Black can com-
plete his development.
b) 4 ... e6 5.0-0
5 ... c5
Black must organize some
counterplay in the centre; other-
wise he will have problems with
the defence of his queenside
weaknesses.
About 5 ... ct:Jf6 6.ct:Jbd2 - see
4 ... ct:Jf6.
5 ... d6 6.a4! bxa4 (after 6 ... b4
7.c3 White maintains his space
advantage, his lead in develop-
ment and his initiative on the
queenside) 7.ct:Jc3 ct:Je7 8.Jtg5 Ti-
ger 9 - Goubet, Albertville 1997.
5 ... ct:Je7 6.a4! bxa4 7.c4 ct:Jg6
8.ct:Jc3 Jte7 9. 0-0 1O.d5 c6
11.i.e3 Shabalov - Zapolskis,
Liepaya 2004.
The move 5 ... i.e7looks like a
waste of time, because after
6.ct:Jbd2! ct:Jf6 (6 ... c5, Trajano -
Lima, Pernambuco 2000, 7.dxc5
i.xc5 8.a4) 7.l:::!.e1 c5 (in case of
7 ... d6 8.a4!t b4 9.c3 White has a
side and in the centre), Sundeen
- Vandenburg, Lansing 1990,
and here the simple line 8.e5
ct:Jd5 9.dxc5 i.xc5 10.ct:Je4 trans-
poses to the variation a with an
extra tempo for White.
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ct:J{3 iLb7 4 . .i.d3
Mter 5 ... d5 6.e5 c5 7.c3 ct:Jd7
(in answer to 7 ... ct:Je7, Erlandsen
- Benn, Sandefjord 2002, White's
simplest line is 8.dxc5, winning
a pawn; the move 7 ... Jae-
ger - Fredriksen, Copenhagen
2004, enables White to seize the
initiative on the queenside with:
8.dxc5 i.xc5 9.b4 i.e7 10.a4 bxa4
11.i.e3 in case of
7 ... ct:Jc6, Tatai - Bellon Lopez,
Las Palmas 1975, White should
again play: 8.dxc5 i.xc5 9.b4 i.b6
10.a4t) 8.ct:Jg5 and White enjoys
extra space, his development is
superior and his kingside initia-
tive is dangerous for Black too,
Stinson - Loncarevic, Chicago
1993.
6.c3 ct:Jf6
About 6 ... d5 7.e5 - see 5 ... d5
6.e5 c5 7.c3.
Black loses plenty of time
after 6 ... i.e7 7.dxc5 i.xc5, Nilson
- Stephenson, corr. 1993. White
plays: 8.b4 Jte7 9.a4 bxa4 (it is
worse for Black to try 9 ...
10.axb5 axb5 11 . .!:.xa8 Jtxa8 12.
ct:Jd4, because White remains
with an extra pawn) 10.':xa4
and White has a superior devel-
opment and a powerful pressure
in the centre and on the queen-
side.
In answer to 6 ... Brust-
man - Lebel Arias, Dubai 1986,
White can create dangerous
threats on the queenside with:
7.dxc5 i.xc5 (or 7 ... 8.a4 b4
9.i.e3 10.cxb4 Jtxb4 11.
ct:Jc6 12J:tc1 Iib8 13.ct:Ja3) 8.b4
Jte79.a4.
17
Chapter 1
6 ... tDc6 enables White to
occupy the centre: 7.d5 tDce7
(after 7 ... tDa5 8.l:!.e1 Yf:tc7 9.b3
Black's queenside pieces are
totally misplaced) 8.c4 bxc4
9.iLxc4 tDf6 10.ttJc3 and White
has a huge space advantage and
better development, Flear -
Wohlers, France 1998.
6 ... h6 7 :fle2 ttJf6 (it is too
passive for Black to play: 7 ... iLe7,
Jenni - Erenska, Bad Woeri-
shofen 2001, because White can
counter that with 8.dxc5 iLxc5
9.b4 iLb6 10.a4) 8.tDbd2 cxd4
(Black loses plenty of time with:
8 ... i..e7 9.dxc5 i..xc5, Pierangeli
- Mazziotto, Rome 1996, and
now 10.e5 ttJd5 11.tDe4 iLe7 12.
a4 provides White with domi-
nation in the centre and a pow-
erful initiative on the queenside.)
9.cxd4 iLe7 10.a4 M 11.a5 0-0 12.
e5 ttJe8 (12 ... tDd5 13.Yf:te4 g6 14.
ttJc4) 13.ttJc4, Black's pieces
are extremely passive and he can
hardly organize counterplay any-
time soon, Bengtsson - Eng-
strom, Linkoping 1984.
6 ... d6 7 :fle2 tDf6 (Mter 7 ...
ttJe7 8.a4 M, Levitt - Zapolskis,
Plovdiv 2003, White can exploit
the weakening of Black's queen-
side with: 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.i:td1
Yf:tc7 11.tDbd2 ttJg6 12.CtJc4 l' and
Black's defence is quite problem-
atic, for example: 12 ... i..e7 13.
cxb4 cxb4 14.i..e3 CtJd7 15Jhcl
CtJc5? 16.iLxc5+-. It is too bad
for Black to play 7 ... iLe7, be-
cause after 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.e5 tDd7
10.i..e4, Black can hardly de-
18
velop his kingside, while White's
queenside initiative is over-
whelming, Kovalevskaya - Der-
gatschova-Daus, Germany 2003.
In answer to 7 ... tDd 7, Hernandez
- Lucena, Havana 2003, White
should better play 8.b3!? CtJgf6 9.
ttJbd2 iLe7 10.a4 b4 - Black's
compensation for the pawn is
insufficient after: 10 ... 0-0 l1.ab
axb5 12.lha8 "flxa8 13.iLxb5 -
11.cxb4 cxb4 12.iLb2 0-0 13.
ltac1, because White can pa-
tiently prepare his queenside ini-
tiative making use of his domi-
nation in the centre.) 8.ttJbd2
iLe7, Abello - Dunis, France
2000. White can obtain a clear
advantage in the centre after:
9.dxc5 dxc5 10.c4!? b4 (10 ... bxc4
11.ttJxc4 ttJc6 12.e5 ttJd5 13.i..g5)
1l.e5 CtJfd7 12.CtJe4 "flc7 (12 ... 0-0
13.iLf4 CtJc6 14.l:tadl) 13.i..f4.
White's piece-formation in the
centre is so powerful that his
advantage is overwhelming.
6 ... Yf:t c7 7."fl e2 ttJc6 (About
7 ... ttJf6 8.ttJbd2 - see 6 ... ttJf6
7.Yf:te2 Yf:tc7 8.tDbd2; while in an-
swer to 7 ... d5, Hartmann -
Stone, IEeG 2000, the simplest
line for White is: 8.e5 lLlc6 9.dxc5
i..xc5 10.M i..b6 11.a4; 10 ... i..e7
1l.a4 and he exerts a powerful
pressure on the queenside; in
case of7 ... c4 8.i..c2 lLlf6, Hughes
- Lankey, USA 1991, White can
also follow with: 9.e5!? ttJd5
10.lLlg5 g6 11.lLle4; 10 ... f5 11.
exf6 lLlxf6 12.f4; 10 ... d6 11.f4 h6
12.lLle4 tDc6 13.f51' and Black's
defence is quite problematic. The
following line is practically
forced and it leads to a calm po-
sition with the bishop pair ad-
vantage for White: 13 ... 0-0-0
14.fxe6 fxe6 15.lbxd6+
16.exd6 'xd6 17.a4 18.
.:::rxffi+ Itxffi 19.axb5 axb5 20.lba3
lbc7 7 ... d6 8.dxc5 'xc5,
Crafty - Guest, ICC 1999, and
here after: 9.b4 'c7 10.a4
White preserves a long-lasting
positional pressure; after 8 ... dxc5
9.a4 c4 10 . .ic2 lbd7 1I.lba3t
Black can hardly cope with de-
fending his weaknesses as well
as developing his pieces too.) 8.a4
c4 9 . .ic2 lba5 10.axb5 axb5
1l . .ig5 lbf6, S.Vajda - Covlea,
Bucharest 2000. The most ener-
getic way for White to maintain
his advantage is to play immedi-
ately 12.lba3!, for example:
12 ... b4 (it is worse for Black to
play 12 ... because after
13.d5! it would be very difficult
for him to activate his pieces,
for example: 13 ... .ic5?! 14.lbxb5!
'xb5 15.b4) 13.cxb4 .ixb4 14.
lbe5, Black's king is stranded in
the centre, his c4-pawn is weak
and his piece-coordination is dis-
rupted.
6 ... c4 - this reduction of the
tension in the centre only helps
White to develop his initiative on
the flanks. 7 . .ic2lbf6 (In answer
to 7 ... d6, it seems very purpose-
ful for White to follow with cen-
tral strategy: 8. 'e2lbd7 9.lbg5!?
.ie7 10.f4 h6 11.lbf3 lbgf6 12.e5
lbd5 13.f5lbffi 14.a4 'b6 15.axb5
axb5 .ixa8, Freitag -
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.lbf3 .Jib 7 4 . .id3
Emmermann, Hessen 1995, and
here White creates powerful
threats after: 17 .exd6
18.lbe5; in case of 7 ... g6 8 . .:::re1
lbe7, Martin - O'Harney, London
2000, it is very good for White to
play energetically: 9.d5 .ig7
10.a4 t; Black cannot contain
White's initiative on the queen-
side with the move: 7 ... .ie7, be-
cause after 8.e5 f5 - or 8 ... d6
9.lbbd2 lbd7 10.lbe4 dxe5 II.
dxe5 lbc5 12.'e2 - 9.b3 .id5
10.a4t White is clearly superior
on the queenside, Macieja -
Kania, Poland 1994; White's
game is very easy after: 7 ... d5
8.e5 lbc6 9.lbg5t, since he pre-
serves a powerful pressure on
the kingside, Sharp - Judd, Isle
of Man 1991, or 8 ... h6 9.lbbd2 g5
10.b3 g4 11.lbe1 Vouldis - Duci,
Creta 1996.) 8. 'e2 .ie7 (About
8 ... 9.e5 - see 6 ...
c4 8.i.c2 lbf6 9.e5; after 8 ... d5
9.e5 lbfd7 - in the line 9 ... lbe4
10.i.xe4 dxe4 11.lbg5 12.
lbxe4 Black's compensation for
the pawn is obviously insuffi-
cient - 10.lbg5 .i.e7 11. g6
12. and White has a pow-
erful initiative on the kingside,
while Black has no counterplay
whatsoever, Bernard - Bialas,
corr. 1991, or 10 ... g6
Mokos - Vodicka, Slovakia 2001.)
9.lbbd20-0 10.e5lbe8 (10 ... lbd5
11.lbe4 h6 12.b3t) 11.lbe4 f5
12.exf6 lbxf6 13.lbfg5t. Black
lags in development so much
that his defence against White's
threats on the kingside is quite
19
Chapter 1
problematic, Leib - Frank, Pin-
neberg 200l.
6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 4:Jc6 (About
7 ... 4:Jf6 - see 6 ... 4:Jf6; in
answer to 7 ... d6, Kohut - Kro-
cian, Bratislava 1991, White can
exploit Black's queenside weak-
nesses with: 8.a4 bxa4 9.4:Jc3;
8 ... b4 9.i.f4 4:Jf6 10.4:Jbd2; after
7 ... d5 8.e5 4:Jc6 9.4:Jc3l:lc8
4:Jge7 11.l:tc1 4:Jg6 12.4:Jg5
there arose a pawn-
structure typical for the French
Defence and White preserves a
kingside initiative, while Black
has no counterplay, Grazinys -
Andersen, Email 1998; Black
weakens his dark squares too
much after 7 ... g6, Brock - Hippe,
Neumuenster 1999, after 8.a4
bxa4 9.4:Jc3; 8 ... b4 White
enjoys a huge lead in develop-
ment.) 8.4:Jc3 4:Jb4 (Black's
queenside play is absolutely in-
effective after: 8 ... .I:i.c8 9.a3
4:Ja5, Khazankin - Cher-
netsky, Odessa 2003, because af-
ter: ll.d5 12J::tc1 4:Jc4 13.
i.xc4 bxc4 ll ... i.c5 12.
12 ..
l:!.c1 4:Jc4 14 . .txc4 t'l'xc4 15.4:Je5
16.dxe6 dxe6 17.4:Jxb5+-;
14 ... bxc4 15.b4, Black's active
pieces have been exchanged, his
kingside is not developed well
and his queenside has been
weakened.) 9.i.bl d5, Utasi -
Herrera Perez, Havana 1985,
10.e5 llc8 1l.a4 bxa4 12.4:Jxa4.
White's development is superior,
he has a space advantage, while
Black's defence is difficult, be-
20
cause his a6-pawn is weak and
the c5-square is vulnerable.
7. t'l'e2
7 cxd4
About 7 ... c4 - see 6 ... c4
7.i.c2 4:Jf6 7 ... d6 8.4:Jbd2
- see 6 ... d6 7. t'l'e2 4:Jf6 8.4:Jbd2;
7 ... h6 8.4:Jbd2 - see 6 ... h6
4:Jf68.4:Jbd2.
After 7 .. 4:Jc6 8.e5 4:Jd5
cxd4 10.i.xd5 exd5 ll.cxd4
12J:td1 13.4:Jc3 4:Jd8
i.xg5 15.4:Jxg5 Black's bishop is
bad, his dark squares are vulner-
able and the d5-pawn is weak,
Douven - Welling, Eindhoven
1983.
In answer to 7 ... t'l'b6', Zla-
tanova - Botsari, Athens 1992,
White should better play 8.dxc5!?
9.e5 4:Jd5 10.a4 b4 (after
10 ... bxa4 1l.l:lxa4 t Black cannot
get rid of the e5-pawn, which
cramps his position a lot, for ex-
ample it is too bad for him to
play: ll ... d6? 12.b4! t'l'c6 13J:ta3
i.b6 14.b5 15.exd6) ll.c4
4:Je7 12.4:Jbd2 4:Jbc6 13.4:Je4 and
White has extra space, moreover
Black cannot find a safe haven
for his king.
7 ... i.e7 8.dxc5!? i.xc5 9.b4
.J.e7 10.a4 bxa4 (it is even worse
for Black to play 10 ... a5 11.axb5
axb4 12J:txaS 1/..xaS, Mikoska -
Bock, corr. 2001, after 13.e5 ctJg4
14.ctJd4; 13 ... ctJd5 14.c4 ctJb6
15.i..e3 Black has great prob-
lems to develop his knight on bS)
1UIxa4 0-0 (it is better for Black
to play 11...d6 12Jld1 'fic7 13.
.i.f4, but White enjoys a huge
space advantage as well as a
powerful queenside pressure)
12.e5 ctJd5 13. 'fie4 g6 14 . .i.h6l:teS
15.'fie2 S.Nagy - A. Nagy, De-
brecen 1999. Black has weak-
nesses on both sides of the board,
he lacks space and he has no ac-
tive possibilities whatsoever.
7 . 'fic7 S.ctJbd2 cxd4 (After
S ... d6, Konarkowska - Ranniku,
Ohrid 1972, it deserves attention
for White to follow with: 9.b3!?,
so that he can prepare the un-
dermining move a4, preventing
Black from playing c4, for ex-
ample: 9 ... 3l.e7 10.a4 cxd4 11.
cxd4 bxa4 12.l:txa4 3l.c6
0-0 14.i.a3; 11 ... b4 12.i.b2 0-0
and White has a clearly
better position, because of his
extra space and superior devel-
opment. He has ample active
possibilities on both sides of the
board.) 9.cxd4 ctJc6 10.a3! ctJg4?!
(It is better for Black to play
10 ... 3l.e7, but even then after
11.b3! 0-0 12.3l.b2;!; White main-
tains a stable edge, because he
has extra space, moreover Black
has no active possibilities at all,
for example it is too dubious for
him to play: 12 ... ctJh5?! 13.d5!
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ctJ{3 .Yl.b7 4 . .Yl.d3
ctJf4 14. exd5 - Black loses
after 14 ... ctJxd3 15.dxc6 ctJxb2
16.cxb7+-, this line, which of
course is not forced, shows nev-
ertheless the power of White's
move 11- 15.exd5 ctJxd3 16.dxc6
ctJxb2 17.cxb7 MaeS IS. 'fie5 and
White's almighty b7-pawn pro-
vides him with a great advan-
tage.) 11.ctJb3 i.e7 12.i.d2 and
Black's defence is very difficult,
because of his bad knight on g4,
his cramped position and his lag
in development, C.Popescu -
Pessi, Bucharest 1995.
7 ... d5 S.e5 ctJfd7 (It is not good
for Black to play: S ... ctJe4, Che-
tverik - Krivolapov, Gyongyos
1999, because White can counter
that with: 9.ctJe1!? cxd4 10.cxd4
ctJc6 11..lie3 f5 12.f3 ctJg5 13.a4
b4 14.ctJd2 and he maintains a
side.) 9.ltJg5 g6 (It is not any bet-
ter for Black to play: 9 ... i.e7,
Shim Ng Min - Smyth, Email
1999, because after 10.
Black's defence is very difficult,
for example: 10 ... h5?! 11. 'fig3 h4
12.'fig4, or 10 ... ctJfS
i.xg5 12.i.xg5 'fic7 13.ctJd2 ctJc6
14.ltJf3; 11 ... g6 12.i.e3, and
Black's kings ide in both lines is
so weak that White is clearly
better; it seems more reliable for
Black to follow with: 10 ... g6, but
Whi te has a powerful tactical
strike after that - 11.ctJxe6! fxe6
12.i.xg6+ hxg6 'iiifS
14.i..h6+ :xh6 15. 'fixh6+ 'iiif7
'iiif8 17.f4 and Black's
pieces are totally discoordinated,
21
Chapter 1
so his defence is extremely diffi-
cult. White's attack is very dan-
gerous too after: 15 ... '>t>gS 16.
10.'f3 'e7,
Salmi - Bigalke, Tampere 200l.
Mter 1l.,h3 i.g7 (in the line
1l ... cxd4 12.cxd4 ctJc6 13.ctJf3
i.g7 Black remains
with a weak light squared bishop
and vulnerable dark squares,
particularly the c5-outpost)
12.ctJf3 h6 13.l!!.e1 ctJc6 14.ctJa3:t
White's positional advantage is
stable, because Black can hardly
find a safe shelter for his king,
meanwhile his active play on the
queenside has only created ad-
ditional weaknesses.
8.cxd4
8 ... ctJc6
In answer to S ... d6, Rossello
- I.Torre, IEee 2000, White can
exploit the weakening of his
opponent's queenside with the
help of: 9.a4 b4 (9 ... bxa4 10.
ctJc3) 10.i.f4 i.e7 1l.ctJbd2.
After 8 ... d5 9.e5 ctJfd7 10.
ctJg5!t White's kingside initiative
is very dangerous, Eslon - San-
chez, Mislata 1993.
S ... i.e7 9.a4! b4 (9 ... bxa4
10.ctJc3) 10.i.g5 h6 (In answer
22
to 10 ... d6 11.ctJbd2 h6, Grabuzova
- Frog, Moscow 1991, White can
play the simple line 12.i.h4 ctJc6
13.ctJb3 0-0 t and he
maintains a powerful pressure
on the queenside.) ctJh5
12.i.xe7 13. 0-0 14.
ctJbd2 ctJc6 15JHc1 ctJf6 16.ctJb3
I1fcS 17 J:tc2 Sosonko - Sahovic,
Amsterdam 1979. White's initia-
tive on the queenside is over-
whelming, while Black has no
counterplay whatsoever.
9.ctJc3 d5
In response to 9 ... 'bS, Brze-
zicki - Kubien, Wroclaw 19S0,
White has a powerful counter-
measure: 10.e5 ctJgS (10 ... ctJd5
1l.ctJxd5 exd5 12.i.f4) 1l.a3
ctJge7 12.i.e4 ctJg6 13.i..g5 and
he has a lot of extra space and
superior development.
It is not so good for Black to
play 9 ... b4 10.ctJa4 d5, Juergens
- Weiss, Austria 2001. After
l1.e5 ctJe4 (White preserves
a stable advantage too after:
1l ... ctJd7 12.i.e3 i.e7 13.ctJd2
14.b3 0-0 15.'g4, or 11 .. .
12.b3 ctJd7 13.i.d2; 12 .. .
ctJe4 13. i.xe4 de 14. 'xe4 I1dS
15.i.e3) 12.i.xe4 dxe4 13.'xe4
ctJa5 14. 'e2 ncs 15.b3 i.e7
(Black could have regained his
pawn with: 15 ... i.xf3 16. 'xf3
17.i.b2 'a7 lS.l:!acl, but
his lag in development and his
weak queenside qualify his posi-
tion as extremely difficult.)
16.i.e3 Black's light squared
bishop is very powerful indeed,
but it does not compensate the
loss of a pawn, since the rest of
the black pieces are completely
misplaced.
10.ii.g5 tDb4 l1.e5 h6 12.
ii.h4 g5
Black cannot change much,
by playing: 12 ... tDxd3 1 3 . ' ~ x d 3 g5
14.tDxg5.
(diagram)
13.tDxg5 hxg514 . .txg5 .te7
15.exf6 Harikrishna - Wohl,
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.tD{3 JLb7 4.JLd3
Torquay 2002. White preserves
a solid extra pawn.
Conclusion
We have analyzed some quite seldom played moves for Black in
answer to 1.e4. The "most difficult" task for White to prove his ad-
vantage is connected with the move 1 ... a6, followed by 2 ... b5. Black
is not fighting immediately for the centre indeed, but still he has a
clear plan of mobilizing his pieces. The essential drawback of this
line is the weakening of Black's queenside. In case he does not follow
quickly with the move c7-c5, undermining his opponent's centre,
White seizes the initiative on the queenside by playing a2-a4. If Black
plays c5 prematurely - White can occupy plenty of space byexchang-
ing on c5, followed by e5 and tDe4. The transposition to the French
Defence is not favourable for Black either, because White can pro-
ceed with his standard kingside play indeed, but he can also seize
the initiative on the queens ide too due to the weakness of the c5-
square. Black's light squared bishop is usually very bad in similar
structures of the French Defence, but here, particularly after Black
plays d7-d5 - it becomes a total disaster. The other first moves for
Black that we have analyzed in this chapter enable White, with simple
and logical play in the centre, to obtain easily a great advantage.
23
Chapter 2 l.e4 b6 2.d4
2 ... i.h7
This is Black's basic reply in
this position and it leads to the
Owen's Defence.
After 2 ... g6 3.lLlc3 i.g7 4.f4
the positions which are reached
have been analyzed in Chapter
22, book 4.
tice:
2 ... i.a6?! 3.i.xa6 lLlxa6 4.tDf3
cS (About 4 ... e6 S.O-O - see 2 ...
e6 3.tDf3 i.a6?! 4.i..xa6 tDxa6
S.O-O. In answer to 4 ... S.
0-0 Nimzo 99 - Hiarcs 6.0,
1999, White's simplest line is
6.:e1 e6 7.c4 and he has a huge
space advantage. It is even
worse for Black to play 4 ... tDf6?!
S.e5 tDd5, Sief - Dopey, Internet
1999, because White wins a
piece after: 6.c4 tDdb4 7.a3 tDc6
24
8.b4+-, while after S ... tDg8 6.
O-O White's lead in develop-
ment is overwhelming. It is quite
dubious for Black to try 4 ... d5,
Hotplayer - Boson, Internet
1999, because after 5. tDb8
6.exd5 7.tDc3 White's
development is clearly superior.)
5.d5 e6, Hooi Soon - Chen, Sin-
gapore 2003. Now after 6.0-0
tDf6 7. tDb8 8J:td1 White
enjoys a space advantage and a
huge lead in development.
In answer to 2 ... cS!? it is too
dangerous for White to win a
pawn with: 3.dxc5 bxcS 4.
tDc6 6. e5:i5, because Black
remains much ahead in develop-
ment. It is advisable for White
to play 3.tDf3 and transpose into
the Sicilian Defence (l.e4 cS
2.tDf3 b6 3.d4). It is also good
for White to play 3.dS transpos-
ing to the Benoni Defence (l.d4
c5 2.dS b6?! 3.e4) and Black's
move b6 looks dubious to say the
least.
After 2 ... e6 3.tDf3 Black usu-
ally transposes to the Owen's
Defence with 3 ... i.b7 (about
3 ... dS 4.tDc3 - see the French
Defence) 4.Ji.d3. The rest of the
moves are rather questionable:
3 ... i.h4+?! This move is typically
a waste of time and White plays
a useful move, fortifying his cen-
tre and Black is now forced to
retreat: 4.c3 i.e7 5.i.d3. We
reach positions, which will be
analyzed in our main line, except
that White will be with an extra
tempo and that enables him to
play even more energetically.
5 ... d6 (5 ... ..tb7 6.0-0 d6, Goldbar
- Tao, Leiden 2004, 7. li:Jf6
8.li:Jbd2) 6.0-0 li:Jd7 e5
8.i.b5 ..tf6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10J:td1
CiJe7, Gras - Jamme, Aix les
Bains 2003, 11.li:Jbd2. White has
a huge lead in development;
3 ... CiJe7 4.i.d3 i.b7 (in answer
to 4 ... i.a6, Eliet - Nemety,
France 1996, White's simplest
line is 5.c4 d5 - Black must try
to support somehow the idea
to develop his bishop to the
a6-square - 6.cxd5 i.xd3 7.
exd5 8.li:Jc3 dxe4 9. c6
10.0-0 and Black will have
great problems to complete his
development) 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 CiJd7,
Mohr - Vojko, Ljubljana 1998,

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ji.b7 3.Ji.d3
3 ... CiJc6?! This move enables
White to obtain a great space
advantage. 4.d5 exd5 (It is
hardly better for Black to play
4 ... CiJce7. After 5.c4 Ji.b7 6.CiJc3 g6
7. Rush - Mwange, Luzern
1982, White's pieces are de-
ployed quite harmoniously.)
5.exd5 CiJce7 6.iLc4 d6 7.0-0
Grunberg - Lutton, Port Erin
2002. Black has lost plenty of
time to place his knight to an
unfavourable position and White
has a space advantage and su-
perior development;
3 ... CiJa6?! It is not so easy for
Black's knight to enter the action
from that square; moreover
White can develop his pieces
with tempo now. 4.c3 iLb7, Kha-
lidhara - Abdallah, Sanaa 2002,
5 . ..td3;
3 ... h6?! 4 . .td3 i.b7 (after
4 ... ..te7, Hintikka - Taipale,
Kuopio 1995, it is very good for
White to play 5.0-0 iLb7 6.c4
and he has a great space advan-
tage) 5.0-0 li:Jf6 (it is worse for
Black to play 5 ... i.e7 6.c4 d6
7.CiJc3 a6 8.l:i.e1 CiJf6 9.e5 CiJfd710.
d5 Puskas - Armeanu, Eforie
Nord 1999, because White's lead
in development is overwhelming)
6JIe1 CiJc6 7.e5 CiJd5 8.c4 CiJdb4
9.i.e4 Jaeger - Berntsen, Nor-
way 1998. Black's pieces are
quite misplaced, he lacks space
and White's powerful centre is
dominating the board;
3 ... iLa6?! Black will have
problems with his knight at the
edge of the board after the trade
25
Chapter 2
of the light squared bishops.
4.i..xa6 lDxa6 5.0-0 lDe7 (In an-
swer to 5 ... c6, Romero - Castillo
Martinez, Aragon 1995, it is ad-
visable for White to play the
simple lDc7 7.c4 with a
huge space advantage. After
5 ... h6, Cuartas - Coppini, Reggio
Emilia 1981, it is also good for
White to play lDb8 7.d5
and Black has problems to com-
plete his development. He has
the same problem after: 5 ...
g6 lLlb8 7.d5 i.g7 8.i.g5
lLle7 9.lLlc3 Sosonko - Bohm,
Leeuwarden. After 5 ... c5, Zajac
- Morin, corr. 1996, it is the
simplest for White to occupy
some additional space first with:
6.d5 lLlf6 7. lLlbS - Black
loses a piece after: 7 ... lDc7?! S.d6
- 8 . .l:tdl Black's position is
cramped and he lags in develop-
ment considerably.)
7.lLlc3 lLlg6 h6 9.i..e3 iLe7
10J:tad1 0-0 l1.h4. Black's posi-
tion is squeezed and his pieces
are quite misplaced on the
queenside, so White can start
active actions on the kingside
immediately. 11 ... f5 (It is too dan-
gerous for Black to play: 11 ...
i..xh4 12.lLlxh4 lLlxh4 13.f4 l:Ie8
14.f5 exf5 15.g3lLlg6 16.exf5lLlf8
17 13 ... d5 14. lLlg6
14 .. 15.f5 dxe4
16.fxe6, White has excellent
compensation for the pawn, be-
cause Black's pieces are rather
misplaced.) 12.h5 fxe4 13.lLlxe4
lLlhS (after 13 ... lLlf4 nxf4
15.lLle5 Black can hardly coor-
26
din ate his pieces) 14.lDe5 Gli-
goric - Prins, Saltsjobaden 1952.
White has a space advantage and
his pieces are developed much
more harmoniously;
3 ... lDf6 4.iLd3 iLe7, Arouno-
poulos - Gilgenbach, Dusseldorf
2000 (Black cannot change any-
thing with 4 ... c5, Hahn - Kotter,
Germany 1993, because after
5.e5 lDd5 6.c4 lLlb4 7.iLe4 he
cannot coordinate his totally mis-
placed pieces on the queenside.)
5.e5lDd5 6.c4lLlb4 7.iLe4;
3 ... g6 4.c4 iLg7 5.lDc3 lLle7
6.i.g5 i.b7, Cruz Lima - Arba-
iza, Cajas 1989,
3 ... c5 4.d5 (this move seems
stronger for White than the
transposition to the Sicilian De-
fence after 4.lLlc3, or 4.c4) 4 ... d6
(It is too bad for Black to play
4 ... exd5, Klein - Christoph, Koe-
nigsfeld 1969, because after
lLlc6 6.iLc4 7.iLg5
8.lDc3 he has problems to
complete his development and he
has too many weak squares in
the centre; after 4 ... lDf6 5.lLlc3
i.b7 6.i.c4 a6, Vergbovskij -
Davidjan, Armavir 1995, White
should better follow with 7.a4
exd5 S.exd5 and Black's posi-
tion is quite cramped and his
light squared bishop has no good
prospects; it is also insufficient
for Black to continue with 4 ...
.ib7 5.lLlc3 exd5 6.exd5 d6 7.
lDd7 8.0-0 a6 9 . .:t.e1+
Ait Hamidou - Ben
Kassem, Tripoli 2004, because he
can hardly complete his develop-
ment; it is bad for Black to play
4 ... 'l;rc7 as well, Krajewska -
Tomczyk, Leba 2004. After 5.ttJc3
White is threatening 6.ttJb5, and
Black's attempt to prevent that
move with 5 ... a6, leads after 6.e5
d6 7.i.f4 to a considerable lead
in development for White.) 5.ttJc3
a6 (after 5 ... e5 6.i.b5+ ii.d7
7.i.xd7+ ttJxd7 8.ttJd2 a6 9.a4
ttJe7 10.ttJc4 Black's queenside
has been weakened and he lacks
space, Geenen - Onkoud, France
2003) 6.a4 ttJf6 7.i.d3 h6 8.0-0
i.e7 9.h3 0-0 10.l:.e1 exd5 11.
ttJxd5 ttJbd 7 12.i.f4 ttJxd5 13.
exd5 ttJf6 14.c4 Alekhine -
Koutny, Prague 1935. Black's
defence is very difficult. He has
problems to activate his pieces,
he has no counterplay and he
lacks space.
3.i.d3
We will now deal in details
with: a) 3 ... ttJf6 and b) 3 ... e6.
The other moves for Black are
only seldom played:
After 3 ... c5 White plays 4.d5
and has clearly better prospects
no matter what scheme of devel-
opment Black chooses. In case of
4 ... e6 White follows with 5.c4 and
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ji.b7 3.i.d3
the bishop on b7 will be com-
pletely out of play in the nearest
future. You can see some games,
for example in the line: 3 ... ttJf6
4. 'l;re2 c5 5.d5;
In answer to 3 ... d5 White's
simplest line is 4.e5, for example:
4 ... i.a6 (The rest of the moves for
Black have no separate value, or
they are just terrible: 4 ... f6?
5. 'l;rh5+ g6 6.i.xg6+- Zippy -
Giffy, Internet 1993. About 4 ...
ttJc6 5.c3 e6 6.ttJf3 - see l.e4 b6
2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5
ttJc6 6.c3; 4 ... c5 5.c3 ttJc6 6.ttJf3 e6
- see l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6
4.ttJf3 c5 5.c3 d5 6.e5 ttJc6; 4 ... e6
5.ttJf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5;
4 .... d 7 5.ttJf3 e6 - see 3 ... e6
4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5 ~ d 7 ) 5.i.xa6 ttJxa6
6.e6! This pawn-sacrifice is quite
typical for similar positions. It
prevents Black from completing
his development; moreover
White now has an excellent tar-
get for attack on the e-file.
6 ... fxe6 7. e 2 'l;rc8 S.ttJf3 c6,
Schlosser - Wiedner, Austria
1994. White should not be in a
hurry to regain his pawn, he
must instead complete his devel-
opment first. 9.i.f4 ttJf6 10.0-0;
3 ... f5? This risky move is an
attempt by Black to exploit the
vulnerability of White's g2-pawn.
Black however, weakens his
kingside and comes under an
extremely dangerous attack.
4.exf5 i.xg2 (it is not any better
for Black to play 4 ... ttJf6 either,
because after 5.ttJf3 White's
development is superior and
27
Chapter 2
he has an extra pawn that
cramps Black's position consid-
erably, Ploder - Daikeler, corr.
1986) 5. g6 6.fxg6 iLg7 (The
first available game, which was
played in this position, ended up
in a quick checkmate after:
6 ... ttJf6 7.gxh7+ ttJxh5 8.i.g6#
Greco-NN, Europe 1620)
(this is White's most energetic
move, although 7.gxh7 is also
very good) 7 ... ttJf6 (Black loses
immediately after 7 ... iLf6 8.g7!
i.xg7 9. 8.i.h6! iLxh6
(The next variation only trans-
poses to the main line: 8 ... <;t>f8
iLxh110.i.xg7+ <;t>xg7 1l.
gxh7+ <;t>f8 After 8 ... e6
i.xh6 10.thg2 ttJc6 11.
gxh7 rj;;e7 12.ttJf3 Ploder - We-
ber, corr. 1988, White remains at
least with an extra pawn, more-
over Black's king is stranded in
the centre: 8 ... 0-0 9.gxh7+ rj;;h8
10.iLxg7+ <;t>xg7 c;t>h8
12. and White remains with
an extra piece, Della Morte -
Lopez, Villa Martelli 2000.)
9.gxh7 c;t>f8 SLxh1 (or
10 ... i.c1 iLxb2 12.ttJe2!
and Black has no satisfactory
defence against ktg1 and ttJf4
with a checkmating attack for
White. It is even worse for Black
to play: 11...ttJc6 12.ttJe2! iLxb2
13.ktg1 rj;;f7 14.ttJf4 l::{g8 15.
iLg6!+-) 11. rj;;f7 12.ttJh3
We6 (this attempt by Black to
run away from the centre with
his king is his most stubborn
defence, because otherwise he
loses immediately: 12 ... 13.
28
i.g6 Wd5
Warzecha - Rachow, corr. 1987)
13.ttJg5+ Wd5 14.ttJc3+ Wc6 15.
O-O-O. Black now loses his
bishop on h1, and White's pow-
erful h7-pawn will yield addi-
tional material gains for him in
the future.
After 3 ... d6 - it is more logi-
cal for White to play 4.f4, analo-
gously to the Pirc Defence.
4 ... tt:ld7 5.tt:lf3 g6 6.0-0 i.g7
7.tt:lc3 - see l.e4 g6 2.d4 i.g7
3.ttJc3 d6 4.f4 b6 5.tt:lf3 i.b7
6.i.d3 ttJd7 7.0-0;
It is almost a disaster for
Black to play: 4 ... f6? 5.ttJf3 ttJd7
6.ffi, because he has problems
with his development and plenty
of weaknesses in the centre,
Lopez Escribano - Rivas Perez,
Madrid 2002;
Black cannot solve his prob-
lems with the purposeful move
4 ... f5, because after 5. fxe4
6.i.xe4 iLxe4 d5
tt:lf6 9.ttJf3 he remains with a
backward e-pawn, less space and
he lags in development too;
In case of 4 ..tt:lf6 5. e6
6.tt:lf3 tt:lbd 7 7.e5 dxe5 8.fxe5
tt:ld5, Pueyo - Iglesias, Oviedo
2003, White can start a danger-
ous attack with and it
is very difficult to find any satis-
factory defence for Black, for ex-
ample it is too risky for him to
play: 9 ... iLe7 10.CLlxe6! fxe6 II.
g6 (it is possibly the best
for Black to play: 12.
0-0+ CLl7f6 13.exf6 CLlxf6 14.
iLe3) 12.iLxg6+ hxg6 13.
wf8 14.0-0+ CLl7f6
Wf7 18.
19.c4+-;
Black has nothing else left but
4 ... e5, but White again enjoys
extra space and a dangerous ini-
tiative after: 5.CLlf3 CLld7 6.0-0
CLlgf6 7.CLlc3 exd4 8.CLlxd4 iLe7
9.CLlf5 Kalendovsky - Vykydal,
Brno 1974.
3 ... CLlc6 4.c3 e5 (About 4 ... e6
5.CLlf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.CLlf3CLlc6 5.c3.
It is not logical for Black to play
4 ... d5?! 5.e5 a6 6.CLlf3 g6 7.0-0
Lyubimov - Hbn, Internet
1998, since after 8.ttel Black
has problems to organize effec-
tive counterplay, because of his
lag in development. In answer to
4 ... g6, Nemet-Heedt, Bie11998,
White's simplest line is 5.f4 iLg7
6.CLlf3 e6 7.0-0 - and he has an
obvious advantage in the centre.
It is more or less the same after
4 ... d6, Costa - Gazzera, San
Francisco 2001, it looks very good
for White to follow with 5.f4 e5
6.CLlf3 and he dominates in the
centre and his development is
superior, or 5 ... e6 6.CLlf3 CLlf6 7.
O-O.) 5.d5 (it is worse for White
to play 5.CLlf3, because after
1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3
5 ... exd4 6.cxd4CLlb4 7.iLc4! iLxe4!
8.iLxf7+ 9.CLlg5+
10.CLlxe4 Black still holds
somehow rather surprisingly)
5 ... CLlce7 6.CLlf3CLlg6 7.0-0 CLlf6 (It
is hardly advisable for Black to
play 7 ... h5. After 8.CLlbd2 c6
9.CLlC4 10.a4 h4 1l . .lIel,
Black has great problems to find
a safe shelter for his king, Kopec
- Day, Ottawa 1984.) 8.CLlbd2 d6,
Rodriguez Lopez - Munoz Mo-
reno, San Sebastian 1995 (in an-
swer to 8 ... c6, Turner - Stein-
bacher, Krumbach 1991, White's
simplest line is for ex-
ample: 9 ... 10.CLlc4 b5 11.CLle3
i.c5 12.a4t, or 10 ... .te7 1l.CLle3
0-0 12.CLlf5) 9.a4!? c6 (White's
initiative develops effortlessly
after: 9 ... a5 10.iLb5+ CLld7 11.CLlc4
.te7 12.b4. It is too bad for
Black to play: 9 ... CLlf4 1O . .tb5+
CLld7 1l.CLlc4 a6
In the line
9 ... a6 10. 1l.a5 b5 12.c4
bxc413.CLlxc4 Black has no com-
pensation for his queenside
weaknesses.) 10.dxc6 iLxc6 II.
After the trade of the
light squared bishops, White will
exploit the weaknesses on d5, f5
and c6-squares even easier.
Black falls back in development
and he can hardly organize any
effective counterplay.
3 ... g6 4.f4 (4 ... CLlf6 5.CLlc3
e6 6.CLlf3 .tb4 - this idea to trans-
pose to the French defence is
dubious for Black, because the
move g6 is definitely not a part
of it. Mter 7.CLld2 8.a3
29
Chapter 2
9.bxc3 White's centre is very
powerful and he has also the two
bishop advantage, so his pros-
pects are clearly superior, Ben-
schop - Tichelaar, Hengelo 1992;
4 ... e6 5.tDf3 c5 6.c3 c4, Brodie -
Alipour, Edmondton 2000, 7.
i.c2; 4 ... f5, Serpik - Blatny, Los
Angeles 2003, after 5.tDd2 ctJf6
tDc6 7.c3 fxe4 8.tDxe4 e6
9.ctJf3;t, there arises the pawn-
structure, which is typical for the
Maroczy system (on opposite
flanks) and White preserves a
stable pressure.) 5.tDf3 d6 (about
5 ... e6 6.tDc3 - see 1.e4 g6 2.d4
i.g7 3.tDc3 b6 4. f4 i.b7 5.tDf3 e6
6.i.d3 - volume 4, Chapter 22.
The next line transposes to the
Benoni Defence, except that
Black's bishop on b7 is mis-
placed: 5 ... c5 6.d5 tDf6 7.c4 0-0
8.tDc3 d6 9.0-0 e6, Buchal -
Alber, Hessen 1990. Now White
has a great space advantage and
better development and he can
start active actions in the centre
with: 10.e5, for example: 10 ... ctJe8
l1.tDg5 exd5 12.e6, or 10 ... dxe5
1l.fxe5 tDg4 12. exd5 13.cxd5
tDd7 14.i.g5 15.e6; 12 ...
tDd7 13.i.f4 White has occupied
the centre and his pieces are
much better placed. Black can
hardly organize any counterplay.
It is now too dangerous for him
to play: 13 ... exd5 14.e6
15.tDg5! tDde5 'f:!.e7 17.
exf7 + 'it>h8 18.ctJxd5; 15 ...
tDde5 17J:lad1 tDxd3 18.
l'1xd3 19.exf7+ 20.b3
21.ctJb5!+-. Black cannot
30
change much with: 6 ... d6 7.c4
ctJd7 8.0-0 ctJgf6 9.tDc3, and
White dominates completely
in the centre, Bobb - Blanco,
Ushuaia 2002.) 6.0-0 tDd7 (After
6 ... c5 7.d5 tDf6 8.c4 0-0 9.tDc3
Leon Hoyos - Hernandez, Ha-
vana 2005, there arises a pawn-
structure, which is typical for the
Benoni Defence, but Black has
problems to obtain counterplay,
because his light squared bishop
is misplaced and he will hardly
manage to play b5, while White
dominates in the centre com-
pletely.) 7.c3 e6 8.'f:!.e1 'f:!.e7 9.a4
0-0-0 10.a5 Karpov - Geor-
gievski, Skopje 1976. White's
centre is quite reliable and
his attacking chances are excel-
lent.
a) 3 ... tDf6
4 ... tDc6
About 4 ... e6 5.tDf3 - see 3 ... e6
4.tDf3 tDf6 5.
The premature move 4 ... d5?!
enables White to sacrifice a pawn
quite typically in order to ham-
per Black's development with
5.e5 tDg8 (it is a disaster for
Black to play: 5 ... ctJe4? 6.f3+-,
l.e4 b6 2.d4 ~ b 7 3.il.d3 ct:Jf6 4. t;re2
because he loses a piece, but it is
almost the same after: 5 ... ct:Jfd7
6.e6!) 6.e6! t;rd6 (after 6 ... fxe6
7.ct:Jf3 Black has problems to
complete his development) 7.
exf7+ Wxf7 8.ct:Jf3 Guennoun -
Ristic, Metz 2001. Black's king
is quite exposed, his e-pawn is
very weak and he can hardly
complete his development, so his
defence is quite problematic.
In case of 4 ... d6 White should
better occupy some more space
with 5.f4 e5 6.c3 exf4 (after
6 ... exd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.e5 ct:Je4 9.
ct:Jd2! Black's powerful central-
ized knight gets exchanged and
White's space advantage is quite
obvious, for example: 9 ... ct:Jc6
10.ct:Jgf3 ct:Jb4 11..tbl.ta6 12. t;re3
ct:Jxd2 13 . .txd2; it is too bad for
Black to play: 9 ... t;rh4+ 10.g3
ct:Jxg3? l1.-,grf2+-, it is hardly bet-
ter for Black to try: 9 ... .tb4
10.ct:Jgf3 c5 11.0-0) 7 . .txf4 ct:Jc6
8.ct:Jf3 t;re7 9.ct:Jbd2, because
White's pieces are deployed har-
moniously and he has a better
development and a powerful
centre, Monsterkiller - Hehe,
Internet 1999.
In answer to 4 ... c5, White
should better occupy some more
space with 5.d5 and he has a
clear advantage, for example:
5 ... e5 6.f4!? d6 7.ct:Jc3 a6 8.a4
exf4 9 . .txf4 ct:Jbd7 10.ct:Jf3 .te7
11.0-0 0-0 12.ct:Jd2 White's de-
velopment is superior and he
has a space advantage too, so
Black has problems to organize
counterplay, Lobron - Balinas,
Manila 1982;
5 ... e6 6.c4 b5 (it is worse for
Black to play 6 ... d6 7.ct:Jc3 iLe7
8.f4 exd5 9.cxd5 0-0 10.ct:Jf3 and
White's development is much
better and his centre is power-
ful, Vatter - Hottes, Hamburg
1987) 7.ct:Jf3 (It is too dangerous
for White to accept the pawn-sac-
rifice, because after: 7.dxe6 dxe6!
8.cxb5 c4 9.i.c2 ct:Jbd7 10.ct:Jc3
ct:Je5<'>O, Black's activity more than
compensates his missing pawn.)
7 ... bxc4 8.i.xc4 exd5 9.exd5+
-,gre7 10.ct:Jc3 t;rxe2+ l1.Wxe2 d6
12J:i:el Black's situation is very
difficult, because of his cramped
position and his weakness on d6,
while White dominates on the e-
file and he has the better devel-
opment, Nikolenko - Minasian,
Cappelle la Grande 1995;
Black has great defensive
problems after: 5 ... g6 6.f4 .tg7
7.c4 d6. White has a much bet-
ter development and it is high
time that he acquired some more
space with: 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 ct:Jfd7
10.Ct:Jf3 e6, Thiemonds - Peuker,
corr. 1989 (It is premature for
Black to castle 10 ... 0-0?!, be-
cause of the move n.e6!, for ex-
ample: 1l ... ct:Jf6 12.ct:Jg5; 11...
fxe6 12. t;rxe6+ Wh8 13. -,grh3 t;re8
14.ct:Jg5 ct:Jf6 15.ct:Je6 5l.c8 16.
ct:Jxg7, or 13 ... :f6 14.ct:Jc3 ~ c 8
15.t;rh4). Now, White had bet-
ter complete his development,
preserving the option to castle on
either side of the board: 11.ct:Jc3
0-0 12.iLg5. White has extra
space and very active pieces and
31
Chapter 2
accordingly he has much better
prospects.
5.c3
5 ... e5
In answer to 5 ... g6, Phillips-
Knight, Burlingame 1998, White
can occupy additional space with
6.f4 .1l.g7 7.ttJf.H.
5 ... e6 6.ttJf3 .1l.e7 (Mter 6 ... d6,
White can seize the initiative on
the queenside with: 7.b4 a5 8.b5
lLlb8 9.0-0 ttJbd7, Gaggiottini -
Nardi, Italy 1995. White has oc-
cupied plenty of space on the
queenside and now he can start
active actions in the centre:
10 . .i:ld1 e5 11.ttJbd2 and Black
can hardly protect his e5-pawn,
because of his lag in develop-
ment. It is even worse for him to
try: 10 ... .1l.e7 ll.e5! .1l.xf3 12.gxf3
ttJd5 13.f4, because White re-
mains with extra space, better
development and a couple of ac-
tive bishops. All that compen-
sates amply the minute weaken-
ing of his castling position.) 7.a3
O-O? (It is possibly better for
Black to play: 7 ... d6 8.0-0 0-0
9.e5; 8 ... e5 9 . .i:ld1 0-0 10.b41'.)
8.e5 ttJe8 9.h4! White begins a
kings ide attack. 9 ... ffi 10.ttJg5! g6
32
(Black gets checkmated by force
after: 10 ... fxg5 l1.i..xh7+
12.hxg5+ 13.Mh8+!
14. gth5+ 15.g6+-; Black's
defence is also very difficult af-
ter: 10 ... f5 l1.gth5! h6 12.gtg6-7)
11.ttJxh7 Mf7 12.ttJxf6+ ttJxf6
13.exf6 .i:lxffi 14. cJitg7 15.
h5+- Bley - Mayer, corr. 2004.
6.ttJf3 d6
here: 6 ... .1l.d6 7.0-0 h6, Leventic
- Mihalecz, Kaposvar 2001, be-
cause White can emphasize
the unfavourable placement of
Black's bishop on the d6-square
with: 8.ttJbd2 0-0 9.ttJc4.
6 ... exd4 - the reduction ofthe
tension in the centre is definitely
in favour of White after: 7.e5lLld5
8 . .1l.e4 ttJa5 (In case of 8 ... ttJde7
9.ttJxd4 10.0-0 ttJd8 ll.ttJd2
ttJe6 12.f4 Rade - Lovric, Pula
2000, White preserves a long-
lasting positional pressure, be-
cause he has superior develop-
ment and extra space, besides
Black's king remains stranded in
the centre. It is hardly better for
Black to play: 8 ... d3
ttJde7, Stefansson - Balinas, New
York 1989. After 10.0-0 ttJg6
.1l.e7 12 . .1l.f5 Black has
problems to evacuate his king
away from the centre.) 9.ttJxd4
ttJe7, Koo - Blatny, Las Vegas
2001 (after 9 ... c5?! 10.lLlf5 g6
11. gtf3 Black remains with too
many weaknesses, Marciano -
Blatny, Internet 2001) 10 . .1l.xb7
ttJxb7 11.0-0, and White's e5-
pawn cramps his enemy's posi-
1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 tbf6 4. 'ifte2
tion a lot, moreover Black's light
pieces are very passive and he
cannot organize any counterplay
at all.
7.0-0
7 .. tbd7
Black's main idea here is to
maintain his pawn on the e5-
square.
Black's main idea here is to
maintain his pawn on the e5-
square.
Some pawn-structure similar
to the Indian Defence (1.d4 tbf6
2.c4 d6 3.tbc3 tbbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5
i.e7), except with a weakened
queenside, arises after 7 ... i.e7
B.d5 tbbB 9.c4 0-0 10.tbc3 tbbd7
1l.i.e3 tbeB 12.tbd2 g6 (Black
has no other possible counter-
play), but here in the game
Chiburdanidze - Jachkova, Eli-
sta 2004, White could have par-
ried Black's possible counterplay
on the kings ide with: 13.i.h6
tbg7 14.f4!? exf4 (14 ... i.f6 15.f5)
15.i.xf4 i.f6 16.tbf.3 'f:ie7 (It is
worse for Black to play: 16 ... tbe5
17.tbxe5 and White's initiative
on the queenside develops much
faster than Black's counterplay.)
17.ltae1 tbe5 1B.tbxe5 i.xe5 19.
i.xe5 'iftxe5 20. 'iftf2 and Black is
dominant over the important
outpost on the e5-square, but
White has instead the crucial d4-
outpost and he can seize the ini-
tiative on both sides of the board.
Black's light pieces have no pos-
sibilities to be activated.
8.tba3 h6
In answer to B .. . i.e7, Epishin
- Blatny, Bastia 2003, White's
plan to bring his bishop to the
d5-square seems quite effective
too: i.f6 (9 ... 0-0 10.i.c4
exd4 11.cxd4 tba5 12 . .id3)
10 . .ic4 0-0 1l . .id5 f'te7 12.tbc2
exd4 13.cxd4 tba5 14 . .ixb7 tbxb7
15.tbb4, Black's c6 and d5-
squares are weak and White's
space advantage promises him
better prospects.
a6 10 . .ic4!
White brings his bishop to the
d5-square and it exerts a power-
ful pressure from there on both
sides of the board.
1O f'te7 1l.tbc2 g6 12 . .Jtd5
i.g7 13.tbb4 tbdb8 14.dxe5
dxe5
15.b31 White thus completes
his development. 15 ... 0-0 16.
i.a3 .!:le8 17.tbc2. It becomes
33
Chapter 2
very difficult for Black now to
develop his queenside pieces
somehow. 17 ... tM71S.ltJe3
19.1Llh4+-. Black's queenside
pieces are isolated and they can-
not join in the defence of the
black king. The game soon en-
tered an endgame with two ex-
tra pawns for White. 19 ... b5 20.
lLlxg6 b4 21.lLlf5 l:le6 22.
23.i.xe6 24.ltJf4
25.lLld5 fxg6 27.
lLlxg7 2S.i.b2 lIa7 29.
lLlxc7 30.lLld5 a5 31.a3 1-0
Mitkov - Blatny, Kansas 2003.
b) 3 ... e6
Black takes the d5-square
under control and prepares the
pawn-break c7-c5. We have al-
ready mentioned that 3 ... c5 im-
mediately is much worse for
Black, because White pushes his
pawn to d5 and obtains a stable
advantage.
4.lLlf3
We will analyze now: bI)
4 ... h6, b2) 4 ... lLlc6, b3) 4 ... i.e7,
b4) 4 ... lLle7, b5) 4 ... g6, b6)
4 ... d6, b7) 4 ... d5 and bS) 4 ... lLlf6.
Black's main defence 4 ... c5 will
be analyzed in our next chapter.
34
Black has played in several
games the strange move 4 ...
.Jtb4+?!, but after 5.c3 White
has an extra tempo in compari-
son to line b3.
The move 4 ... a6 looks like a
waste oftime. After 5.0-0, Black
has tried many different moves,
but his position is quite cramped
and he lags in development in all
the variations: 5 ... g6 (5 ... i.e7
6.c4lLlf6 7.ltJc3; 5 ... ltJe7, W.Stein
- G.Laszlo, Eppingen 2004, 6.c4
ltJg6 7.ltJc3; 5 ... f6 6.lLlh4 ltJe7
7.e5 f5 8 . .tg5 Crafty - Guest,
Internet 1999; 5 ... d6 6.
7.c3 lLle7 8 . .tg5 9.ltJbd2
Henri - Vantet, Noisy Ie Grand
2000) 6.c4 .tg7 7.ltJc3ltJe7 8.e5
Alexopoulos - Johnson, East
Somerset 1985.
bI) 4 ... h6
This move does not contribute
to Black's development and
White obtains easily a stable ad-
vantage.

5 ... lLlf6
In answer to 5 ... c5, Fernandes
- Cordovil, Lisbon 1999, it seems
logical for White to occupy some
additional space after: 6.dS exdS
(I t is even worse for Black to
play: 6 ... ct:Jf6 7.c4 d6 8.dxe6 fxe6
9.eS.) 7.exdS+ '?lte7 8.c4 Black's
position is cramped and his light
pieces have no good prospects,
therefore the arising endgame is
very difficult for him.
S ... d6, Romagnoli - Bini,
Caorle 1989,6.0-0 g6 7.l:!.d1 iLg7
8.c3 and White has a powerful
centre and a great lead in devel-
opment.
S ... '?lte7 6.c4 gS 7.ct:Jc3 iLg7
8 . .te3 ct:Jc6 9.h3 White has ex-
tra space and better develop-
ment, Becker - Liu Xiao You,
Recklinghausen 2003.
5 ... gS 6.ct:Jc3 d6 7.SLe3 SLg7
8.0-0-0 '!l!e7 9.h4 g4 10.ct:Jd2 hS
11.f3 gxf3 12.gxf3 and White
has a solid centre and a power-
ful kingside initiative, Bakh-
matov - Liu Xiao You, Reckling-
hausen 2003.
After S ... iLe7, Engerer-Joos,
Eisenberg 1998, it seems very
good for White to play 6.0-0 d6
7.eS and Black has great prob-
lems to develop his kingside.
6.0-0 iLe7
Mayerhofer - Innreiter, Aus-
tria 2000.
l.e4 b6 2.d4 !iLb7 3.JLd3 e6 4.4'J{3
White's pieces are quite well
centralized and so he can start
active actions with: 7.e5 ct:Jd5
8.iLe4 b5 9.a4 b4 10.c4 bxc3 11.
bxc3. White enjoys a space ad-
vantage, he has better develop-
ment and he can seize the initia-
tive in the centre as well as on
both flanks.
b2) 4 ... ct:Jc6 5.c3
5 iLe7
It looks like Black only loses
time with the move S ... h6, Po-
horsky - Petek, Litomysl 1994.
After 6.0-0, White is threaten-
ing to push back his enemy's
pieces with 7.dS.
S ... ct:Jce7 6.0-0 g6 7.J:.el iLg7
8.ct:Jbd2 f6 9.a4 Haba - Phildius,
Internet 200S. White has a
powerful centre and a queenside
initiative.
5 ... d6 6.0-0 e5 7.'?lte2 a6 8.
Itdl Wellendorf - Opitz, Ger-
many 1998. Black has played the
pawn-move e5 in two tempi and
that makes his defence much
more difficult in comparison to
line a (3 ... 4:Jf6 4. '?lte2 4'Jc6 5.c3 e5).
5 ... 4'Jge7 6.0-0 4:Jg6 7 . .l:!.e1
Yl.e7, Jorma - Kalsi, Espoo 1993,
35
Chapter 2
after 8.tbbd2 0-0 9.tbf1 Black's
position is solid, but very pas-
sive.
5 ... h5?! 6. i.e7 7.d5
White has a great space advan-
tage and much better develop-
ment, Peltomaki - Kalsi, Finland
200l.
In answer to 5 ... tbf6, White
occupies additional space with
6.e5 tbd5 7.c4 tbdb4?! (it is bet-
ter for Black to play 7 .. .lbde7
8.tbc3) 8.i.e2 i.e7? (Black's only
defence was 8 ... a5 9.tbc3) 9.a3
tba6 10.b4 tbab8 1l.d5+- and
White remained with an extra
piece, Karasek - Mayer, corr.
2004.
5 ... 6.0-0 0-0-0 7.b4 h6
8.a4, White's attack on the
queenside seems much more ef-
fective than Black's counter
threats, Lampen - Kalsi, Tam-
pere 1994.
After 5 ... g6, Hewitt - Ban-
kavs, Coventry 2005, it seems
logical for White to play 6.i.g5
(It looks quite strange for
Black to try: 6 ... tbce7 7.0-0 h6
8.i..h4, because he can hardly
complete his development. It is
too bad for Black to play: 6 ...
tbge7 7.i..f6 .l:!.g8 8.tbg5, or 6 ... f6
7.i..e3 i..g7 8.ttJbd2 tbge7 9.h4
and White can seize the initia-
tive on the kingside due to his
lead in development.) 7.0-0 i..g7
8.d5.
6.0-0 d6
In answer to 6 ... tbf6 it seems
logical for White to continue with
7.e5 tbd5 8.c4 ttJdb4 9.iLe2.
36
7.d5 exd5 8.exd5 tbb8 9 . .lle1
h6
After 9 ... i..xd5 10.i..b5+ ..Iic6
1l.i.xc6+ tbxc6 12. White
regains his pawn and maintains
his superior development.
10.c4 De Castro - Sin Kuen,
Hong Kong 1972. White has ex-
tra space and excellent develop-
ment. In addition - the light
squares are quite weak in Black's
position.
b3) 4 ... i..e7 5.0-0
5 ... tbf6
After 5 ... h6?! 6.e5! Black has
problems to develop his kingside:
6 ... i.g5 7.ttJbd2 c5 8.tbxg5 hxg5
9.ttJe4 Bibik - Stodola, Hlinsko
1993.
5 ... d6 ttJd7 (about 6 ...
tbf6 7.e5 - see 4 ... d6 5.0-0 ttJf6
6.'t;\[e2 7.e5) 8.e5
tLJd5 c6 10.c4 tLJc7, Sou-
pizon - M.Johnson, Groningen
1999. Now, after the simple line:
11.exd6 ..txd6 12.tLJe5 White
maintains a stable advantage,
because of the weak black c6-
pawn and the passive deploy-
ment of Black's pieces.
5 ... g5 6.c4 d6, Nowicki -
Nagrocka, Germany 2000. White
has acquired considerably more
space and now it seems quite
logical for him to complete his
development with 7.i.e3, for ex-
ample after 7 ... g4 8.tLJfd2 tLJf6
9.tLJc3 White is already quite
well prepared to start active ac-
tions on the queenside, while
Black has not completed his de-
velopment yet.
5 ... tLJh6?! 6 . ..txh6 gxh6
..tg5 8.tLJxg5 hxg5 9.
10.tLJd2 DarkUfo - Hanna,
Chess.net 1998. White has a
space advantage and superior
development. He can proceed
with active actions on both sides
of the board.
After 5 ... c5, there arises a
pawn-structure, which is quite
typical for the Sicilian Defence,
except that Black has lost time
for the move i..e7 and he has
failed to develop his kingside,
6.tLJc3 cxd4 7.tLJxd4 tLJc6 8.tLJxc6
..txc6 9.e5! d5 11.
Dietrich - Wagner, Email
2000.
6.e5tLJd5
It is too dubious for Black to
play 6 ... tLJg4?!, because after 7.h3
l.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.tLJ(3
h5? (it is better for Black to play
7 ... tLJh6 8.c4) 8.hxg4 hxg4 9.
tLJh2+- Black's compensation for
the pawn is insufficient, Kunte
- McKay, Kapuskasing 2004.
Still, it is slightly better for
Black to play: 6 ... tLJe4, Crafty -
Dlugy, ICC 1998, 7.tLJbd2 tLJxd2
(7 ... d5 - see line b8)
8.tLJxd2 0-0
7.a3 c5
Or 7 ... c6 8.c4 tLJc7
Slowman - Cytebs, Internet
1999.
8.c4 tLJc7 9.dxc5 ..txc5
9 ... bxc5 10.tLJc3.
10.tLJc3 d5 1l.cxd5 tLJxd5
12.tLJe4 ..te7, Schubert - Bre-
beck, Ratingen 1993, and here
after the simple move: 13.iLg5
White either occupies the impor-
tant d6-outpost, or he weakens
Black's kingside considerably.
b4) 4 ... tLJe7 5.0-0
(diagram)
5 ... tLJg6
About 5 ... tLJbc6 6.c3 - see
4 ... tLJc6 5.c3 tLJge7 6.0-0.
5 ... g6 ..tg7 7.tLJbd2 d6
8.tLJf1 tLJd7, Menacher - Tober,
Austria 2002, 9.tLJg3 0-0 10.c3t:.
37
Chapter 2
White preserves a long-lasting
positional pressure, because of
his solid pawn-centre, besides
Black has no active counterplay.
5 ... d6 (it is also possible
for White to play 6.c4 ttJd7 - see
line b6 6 ... ttJe7) 6 ... ttJd7 (6 ... g6
7.c3 .ig7, Yavas - Meyer, Ger-
many 1992, 8.ttJbd2 ttJd7 9.ctJf1
0-0 10.ttJg3;j;:) 7.lDbd2 h6 (7 ... g6,
Alvarado - Dive, Bled 2002,
8.ctJfl .ig7 9.ctJg3 - see 5 ... g6)
8.lDfl a6 9.ctJg3 g6, Mareco -
Claverie, Buenos Aires 2004,
10 . .ie3 iLg7 11.
6 . .ie3.ie7
It is even worse for Black to
play 6 ... c6?!, restricting his only
active piece. 7.lDbd2 Koehler-
Stein, Kassel 2000.
7.c40-0
8.lDc3 ctJh4. Black's knight on
g6 is evidently misplaced, but its
38
exchange leads to even more
powerful initiative by White.
9.ctJxh4 .ixh4 10. Buzeti-
Banic, Ljubljana 2002.
b5) 4 ... g6 5 . .ig5!?
5 ...
5 ... lDe7? This move enables
White to simply crush Black's
kingside position. 6.iLf6
7.lDg5 h6 8.ctJh7 iLg7 g5
10.h4 d5 11.e5 lDd7 12.hxg5
hxg5, MacDonald - Zarkovic,
Auckland 1998, and here the
quickest win for White was the
line: 13.iLxg7 14.lDf6+-.
It is hardly good for Black to
play 5 ... f6, because after 6.iLe3
iLg7 7 .h4 White's active plan on
the kingside is easy to accom-
plish, because of his dominance
in the centre, Wohlfart - Ke-
ckeisen, Goetzis 1997.
5 ... iLe7. This bishop-move
does not combine too well with
the move g6 and White easily
achieves a great advantage with
rather simple moves. 6.iLf4 d6
7.c4 iLf6 8.ctJc3 g5 9 . .ie3 g4
10.ctJd2 ctJc6 11.lDb3 Balinov -
Wais, Vienna 1999.
6.c4 .ig7 7.lDc3 ctJc6
I t is hardly any better for
Black to play: 7 ... d6 8.0-0 ct:Jd7,
Torre - N.Gaprindashvili, Kuala
Lumpur 1994. Mter 9. h6
10 . .ie3 ct:Jgf6 1l.h3 White con-
trols completely the centre and
Black's counterplay is non-exis-
tent.
B.d5 ct:Je5 9.ct:Jxe5 .ixe5 10.
"i::'ld2.ig7
.
iB i .M _
.i.i.
'" --

LSU dfJ
, "li%,%0'" % '". "%if0''';
,: . -"'"
11.0-0-0 h6 (1l ... ltJe7 12.
.ih6! 0-0 13.h4-t) 12 . .ih4 e5
(12 ... d6 13 . .ic2) 13.d6 g5 (13 ...
cxd6 14.ltJb5 .ifS 15 . .ic2) 14 .
.ig3 cxd615.ltJb5 .if816 . .ic2
Rublevsky - Chernyshov, Ohrid
2001. White regains his pawn
and he remains with a great
advantage, because Black has
so many weaknesses to worry
about.
b6) 4 ... d6 5.0-0
l.e4 b6 2.d4 i..b7 3.Jt.d3 e6 4.ct:J(3
5 . ltJd7
About S ... jLe7 6. "i::'le2 - see
4 ... jLe7 5.0-0 d6 S ... ct:Je7
6.ne1 - see 4 ... ltJe7 S.O-O d6
6.1:[el.
5 ... g6 6.i.g5!? f6 (It is not good
for Black to play 6 ... ct:Je7 7 . .if6
Itg8, Antonini - Hirt, Paris 1994,
after 8.ct:JgS! h6 9.ltJh7 White
has a powerful pressure along
the weak dark squares on the
kingside. Mter 6 ... .ie7, Bresciani
- Berlusconi, Lombardia 1991,
White's most logical move seems
to be 7.i.f4, because Black's
bishop on e7 is obviously mis-
placed, while his pawn is on the
g6-square. In answer to: 6 ... "i::'lc8,
Agliullin - Terpugov, Novo-
kuznetsk 1998, White can trans-
pose to line b5, with 7.c4 i.g7
8.ct:Jc3 ct:Jd7 7.i.e3 ct:Jh6
8. "i::'ld2 ltJf7 (8 ... ltJg4 9 . .if4 e5
10.i.g3) 9.c4 i.g7 10.ltJc3 0-0,
Martin Valentin - Pertinez,
Spain 1999, and here White's
best move is 11.cSt, with a pow-
erful initiative on the queenside.
5 ... ltJf6 6. .ie7 (after 6 ...
ltJbd7 White should better play
7.Itd1!, with the idea to follow
with eS, for example: 7 ...
Israel- Ratel, France 2003, 8.eS!
ltJdS 9.jLg5 f6 10.exf6 gxf6 11 .
.id2; 8 ... dxeS 9.dxeS ct:Jd5 10.a3!
- Black has great problems with
the safety of his centralized
knight: 10 ... ct:Jc5 1l.c4 ct:Jb3 12.
cxdS ct:Jxal 13 . .ib5+-; 10 ... c5
11.c4 ct:Jc7 12 . .ie4; 10 ... "i::'ld8
11.c4 ct:Je7 12.jLe4, or 7 .... f;fc8,
Souza - Koffer, Paranagua 1993,
39
Chapter 2
8.lbbd2 il.e7 9.c3 0-0 10.e5 lbd5
1l.lbe4; 8 ... e5 9.lbc4 exd4 10.
lbxd4 lbe5 1l.il.g5) 7.e5 lbfd7
(7 ... de 8.dxe5 lbfd7 il.d5
10.lbc3 c5 1l.lbxd5 exd5 12.e6
lbf6 13.lbg5+- Wosch - Becker,
Email 2002) 8.c4 0-0 (It is worse
for Black to play 8 ... d5 9.cxd5
10.lbc3 .i.b7, Poetschke -
Caels, Willingen 1999, because
after 1l . .i.f4 White is totally
dominant in the centre and he
can exert powerful pressure
along the c-file. All that might
combine into a dangerous king-
side attack.) 9.lbc3 10 . .i.e4
.i.xe4 11. lba6 12.
Demkovich - Semenova, Kiev
2003. White has a stable advan-
tage, because of his extra space
and kings ide pressure.
6.c4
6 ... g6
Mter 6 ... c5 7.d5 e5 B.lbc3 g6,
Exposito - Gonzalez Zamora,
Manresa 199B, there arises a
pawn-structure, which is typical
for the Benoni Defence (the
closed variation - Ld4 c5 2.d5
e5), except that White has sev-
eral extra tempi and the logical
way to exploit that is to play:
40
9.a3, seizing the initiative on
the queenside.
6"'lbe7 7.lbc3 e5 (about 7 ...
g6 8.il.g5 - see 6 ... g6; 7 ... h6 8.
.i.e3 a6 9.b4 g5 10.d5 lbg6 II.
lbd4 Canfell - Wohl, Auckland
2005) 8.d5 lbg6 9 . .i.e3 10.
b4 White's initiative develops
obviously faster than Black's
counterplay, Sicars - Konik,
Wiesbaden 2000.
6 ... h6 7.lbc3 .i.e7, Benkiar -
Slimani, Algiers 2000 (7 ... g6,
Isonzo - Bini, Montecatini Terme
1994, 8 . .i.e3 .i.g7 Mter
7 ... lbe7, Schmitz-Kramps, Ger-
many 1993, it is logical for White
to continue with: B . .i.e3 g5 9.
and he has an extra tempo
in comparison to the line 6 ... g6.)
Now, it seems very good for
White to play: B.d5 e5 (B ... lbgf6
9.lbd4 lbc5 10 . .i.c2) 9 . .i.e3 lbgf6
10.lbd2 and he has occupied
more space and his initiative on
the queenside is quite obvious.
6 ... lbgf6 7.lbc3 e5 (7 ... .i.e7
8 . .i.f4 0-0 9. g6 10J:tadl
White has a stable edge, due to
his centralized pieces, Kosmow-
ski - Wieszczycki, Suwalki 2000)
8.d5 .i.e7, Debowiak - Trabszys,
Krynica 2001 (Black's active
move B ... lbc5 only facilitates
White's initiative on the queen-
side: 9 . .i.c2 a5 10.lbd2 .i.e7 11.
0-0 12.a3 .i.cB 13.b4 axb4
14.axb4 lbb7 15 . .i.a4 .i.d7 16.
.i.c6 Bank - Lauridsen, Festuge
1991). White can now transpose
to the game Chiburdanidze -
Jachkova, Elista 2004, which we
8 ... l2Je7
White's initiative runs
smoothly after: 8 ... f6 9.i.e3
12Jh6 10.c5t dxc5, Grimm - Sche-
rer, Stetten 1988, and now the
excellent resource em-
phasizes Black's difficulties,
caused by his lag in development
and lack of space, for example:
11...l2Jf8 12.Z1ad1 cxd4 13.l2Jxd4
and Black's king remains in
the centre and he has no piece-
coordination at all, so his extra
pawn is practically immaterial.
play: 12.l2Jb5t, because
White regains his pawn and
preserves his positional advan-
tage. It is almost the same after:
1l ... cxd4 12.'i;:he6+ (12 ...
13.l2Jxd4 12Jc5 14.i.b5+
13.i.xd4, because
Black is faced with a difficult
defence in a position with mate-
rial equality.
9.tM2 h6 10.i.e3l2Jf6
1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.l2J(3
10 ... gS ll.dS! 12Jg6 (after 11 ...
e5 12.b4l2Jg6 13.c5 bxc5 14.bc dc
15.l2Ja4 0-0 16.l2Jxc5 White's
initiative is clearly ahead of
Black's eventual counterplay,
Marciano - Garcia Ilundain,
Suances 1997) 12.l2Jd4 13.
12Jcb5 12Jc5 14.i.c2 a5 15.b3 0-0
16.a3 a417.b4l2Jb3 18.i.xb3 axb3
exdS 20.exdS f5
f4 22.i.d2 g4 23.l:tae1 24.f3
011 - Spassky, Tallinn 1998.
White wins a pawn and main-
tains a clear advantage in the
centre, while Black has problems
to create any counterplay.
lO ... a6 ll.:'ad1 (In case
Black plays actively with: ll ... gS
12.h3 eS 13.iLbl 12Jg6
lS.l2Jd5 he only creates ad-
ditional weaknesses, Porto -
Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro 2000.)
12JHe1 13.a4 Black's
strange queen-maneuver has
just helped White to start active
actions on the queenside, An-
drade - Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro
1999.
1l.h3 d5
12.cxd5 exd5 13.e5l2Je4 14.
15.bxc3 Ibragimov
- Stefanova, Pulvermuehle 2000.
41
Chapter 2
White has extra space and he can
build up a powerful initiative on
the kingside, so his positional
pressure is long-lasting.
b7) 4 ... d5 5.e5
5 ... c5
5 ... i.a6 - this idea to ex-
change the light squared bishops
is losing too much time. 6.i.xa6
CDxa6 7.c4!? c6 8.cxd5 9.
0-0 CDe7 10.CDc3 1l.CDe4
Pavlovic - Rosic, Yugoslavia
2000. White has extra space and
he can seize the initiative on both
sides of the board.
It is too passive for Black to
play 5 ... CDd7, and White can ex-
ploit that with the standard at-
tacking move: 6.CDg5! i.e7 (6 ...
g6 7.h4 fie7 8.h5; 6 ... h6 7.
8.CDxf7+-) and
again White has extra space and
a powerful initiative on the
kingside.
5 ... CDe7 6.b4!? CDg6 7.c3 c5 8.a3
i.e7 9.h4!t White has squeezed
his opponent completely on the
queenside with a quite standard
maneuver and now he can attack
safely on the kingside. 9 ... CDxh4
10.CDxh4 JLxh4 11.fig4 JLe7 12.
42
l:.f8 13.l:.xh7 Struik- Van
Leent, Hoogeveen 2002. Black
has no compensation for the
pawn at all.
5 ... CDc6 6.0-0 iLe7 (in answer
to 6 ... CDge7 7.c3 CDg6, Espina -
Villar, Oviedo 2003, it is good for
White to follow with 8.CDg5! i.e7
9.fih5 10.CDxe6+-; 9 ... iLxg5
fid7 11.l2Jd2 and White
has the two bishop advantage
and extra space) 7.c3 8.fie2
g6?! This move weakens the dark
squares, but Black has problems
to create counterplay anyway-
White is threatening with active
actions on both sides of the
board. 9.b4 h5 10.a4 a5 11.b5
CDa7, Dietz - Forbrich, Germany
1989. It is very favourable for
White to exchange the dark
squared bishops in that position:
12.iLg5! 0-0-0 13.CDbd2 and
Black has no counterplay what-
soever.
6.c34Jc6
In response to 6 ... LUe7, Ja-
hangir - Flaga, Chicago 1996,
White's simplest reaction is the
standard move 7 .a3t.
6 ... iLe7 7.0-0 CDd7, Zila-
Sandor, Hungary 2002, and
again the typical move: 8.a3! c4
9.iLc2 deprives Black of any
counterplay on the queenside.
The move 6 ... g6?! weakens
the dark squares on the kingside:
7.0-0 4Jc6 8.i.g5! i.e7 9.i.xe7
CDgxe7 10.4Jbd2 Demko - Maj-
ling, Martin 1996.
Mter 6 ... fid7 a5 (7 ...
CDc6 8.a3 Gaensmantel -
Seyffer, Germany 1990, 9.b4t)
8.0-0 .1a6, Gosztola - Fellegi,
White obtains a powerful pres-
sure in the centre and on the
queenside after: 9 . .1xa6 ctJxa6
10.c4! cxd4 (1O ... dxc4 11.:d1 'c6
12.ctJbd2 ctJc7 13.ctJxc4 b5 14.
ctJe3) 1l.l:!.d1 l:tc8 12.cxd5 ctJb4
13.ctJxd4 ctJxd5 14.ctJb5.
The move 6 ... ctJd7 is too pas-
sive and White can proceed with
the standard kingside attack
with: 7.ctJg5! g6 8.h4 cxd4 9.cxd4
f6? (9 ... l:tc8 10.ctJc3; 9 ... ctJh6
1O.h5t) 10.ctJxe6+- Righi-Kgat-
she, Thessaloniki 1988.
6 ... h6 7.0-0 .i.e7 (if 7 ... ctJc6,
McLure - Caels, Thessaloniki
1984, then after 8.a3!t, White
prevents Black's counterplay on
the queenside and he has excel-
lent chances to develop a power-
ful initiative on the kingside)
8 . .lte3 ctJc6 9.ctJbd2 a6, Zrinscak
- van Gellecom, Kleve 1999. Now
after 10.a3 c4 (10 .... 11.b4)
1l . .ic2 12.ctJel, White's
kingside attack runs unopposed
and Black has no counterplay
at all.
6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 .ltb4+, Arias
Torio - Sanchez Gonzalez, Astu-
rias 2000, and Black's bishop is
misplaced on the b4-square,
while its exchange for White's
knight is definitely not in
Black's favour. The simplest line
for White should be: 8.ctJc3! ctJe7
9.0-0.
After 6 ... 7.0-0 ctJc6 8.Ji.e3
c4 9 . .ic2 b5 10.ctJg5 h6 11. 'h5
White manages to obtain the
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Jib7 e6 4.CiJf3
typical kingside pressure for po-
sitions of this type, Brodbeck -
Von Zimmermann, Wuerttem-
berg 1995.
6 ... f6 7.'e2 CiJc6 8.exf6
9 . .i.g5 'f7 10.0-0 Haecker -
Swemers, Erfurt 1998. Now,
opening of files in the centre is
clearly in favour of White, be-
cause of his lead in development.
6 ... c4 7 . .ic2 ctJe7 (Black's de-
fence is even more difficult after:
7 ... b5 8.0-0 a5 9.CiJg5 g6 10.'f3
Lipschuetz - Burille, New York
1889.) 8.0-0 CiJd7 9.CiJg5! h6
(Black can save his position
against White's attack neither
with: 9 ... ctJf5 10 . .1xf5 exf5 11.
Lopez Martinez - Aguilera
Olivar, Zaragoza 1999, nor with:
9 ... g6 10. 'f3 ctJf5 1l . .ixf5 gxf5
12.ctJxe6+-; 1l ... exf5
10. g6 11. CiJf5 12 . .ixf5
gxf5 (it is too dangerous for Black
to open files in the centre: 12 ...
exf5 13. 14.b3!
.ig7 15.ctJh3. Black has no
counterplay whatsoever.
The move 6 ... is connected
with the idea to trade the "bad"
bishop, but it still takes too much
time: 7.0-0 .lta6 8.ctJg5 .ixd3
g6, Thomas - Pueplich-
huisen, Kleve 2001, and now af-
ter the energetic move 10.c4!,
with eventual developments
like: 10 ... h6 1l.ctJf3 dxc4 12.
13.,c2 ctJc6 White
dominates completely in the
centre.
7.0-0 ctJge7
7 ... :c8 8 . .ie3 g6 cxd4
43
Chapter 2
10.cxd4 CZJge7, Huistra - Amesz,
Hengelo 1996. White's most di-
rect way to exploit the weakness
of the dark squares is: 11.i.g5
i.g7 12.CZJc3 h6 (It is worse for
Black to play 12 ... 0-0
because White then has excellent
attacking chances.) 0-0
(or 13 ... g5 14.li'lb5 0-0 15.CZJd6)
14.li'lb5.
7 ... cxd4 S.cxd4 a6 9.li'lc3 b5
10Jle1l:tcS 11.li'le2 i.b4 12.i.d2
li'lge7 13.l:tcl Fernando - Rita,
Portugal 2000. Black's light
squared bishop is very bad and
his dark squares on the kingside
are quite vulnerable.
7 ... i.e7 S.a3 (it is clearly
worse for Black to play S ... li'lh6,
Azua - Garcia, Buenos Aires
2002, because after 9.i.xh6 gxh6
10.b4 Black's bishop pair does
not compensate his kingside
weaknesses), Bloemhard - Mu-
ris, Soest 1999, and here after
the standard reaction 9.b4t
Black has no counterplay.
After 7 ... S.l:i.e1 c4 9.i.c2
0-0-0 10.b3 White preserves
excellent attacking chances,
Simonsen - M.Nielsen, Copen-
hagen 2002.
7 ... li'lh6 SJ:te1 g6 9.i.g5 'f:Jc7,
Kuebel - Hoose, Bad Neustadt
1990, and here after the simple
line: 10.i.f6 .l::!.gS 11.li'lg5 White
has a powerful initiative on the
kingside.
The move 7 ... c4 - reduces the
tension in the centre and de-
prives Black of any counterplay.
b5 (It is not any better for
44
Black to play: S ... CZJge7
li'lg6 10.CZJg5 i.e7 11. i.xg5
12.i.xg5 13.li'ld2 Lapis -
Sviridov, Havirov 1965. White
remains with a two bishop ad-
vantage and a possibility for ac-
tive actions on both sides of the
board.) 9.li'lg5 i.e7 (the move
9 ... h6, Studer-Baertsch, Wangs
Pizol 1996, loses for Black after:
10. 'f:Jh5! g6 11.i.xg6+-; 10 ...
l1.li'lxf7+-; 10 ... hxg5 11. 'f:JxhS
li'lh6 12.li'ld2+-) 10.'f:Jg4 g6 (or
10 ... li'lh6 11. and Black
loses a pawn) 11. 'f:Jf4 and Black
is forced to enter a very difficult
endgame.
8.a3l2Jg6
In answer to S ... 'f:Jc7, Braj-
nikov - Smyth, Email 2000.itis
again very good for White to play
9.b4.
S ... c4 9.i.c2 li'lf5 i.e7
1l.li'lbd2 0-0, Liew - Heesen,
Email 1999, and now after 12.
CZJf1 b5 13.li'le3t White manages
to trade Black's only active piece
and he can build up slowly and
patiently his kingside initiative.
This position was reached in
the game T.Schmid - Okan, Ger-
many 1995. After White's logical
reaction: 9.b4 i.e7 10Jlel 0-0
11.tDbd2t Black has no counter-
play and White's kingside initia-
tive develops unopposed.
bB) 4 ... tDf6
This is the most popular move
for White and it is his standard
reaction against tDf6 in this
opening.
5 ... d5
either very dubious, or they just
transpose to lines that we have
already analyzed:
About 5 ... c5 6.c3 - see 4 ... c5;
5 ... d6 6.0-0 i.e7 7.e5 - see 4 ... d6
5.0-0 tDf6 i.e7 7.e5;
5 ... tDc6?! 6.e5 tDd5 7.c4 i..b4+?
tDde7 9.a3+- Ivanchuk -
Olejarczyk, Warsaw 1999;
5 ... i.b4+?! 6.c3 i.e7, Wern-
smann - Westermann, Willingen
2001, 7.e5 tDd5 8.a3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4
10.c4 tDc7 11.tDxd4;
5 ... i.e7 6.0-0 O-O?! (6 ... c5 7.c3
- see 4 ... c5; 6 ... d6 - see 4 ... d6;
6 ... h6?!, Schuermann - Mittag,
Germany 1993, 7.e5! tDd5 8.c4
tDb4 9.i.e4; 6 ... d5 7.e5 tDe4
8.tDbd2 - see 5 ... d5; 7 ... tDfd7
8.c4!? dxc4 9.i.xc4 a6 10.tDc3 b5
l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.il..d3 e6 4.tDf3
11.i.d3 tDb6 12.i.e4 13.lM1
0-0 14. h6 15.i.e3 16.
1:!.ac1 };Id8 17.d5! Khalifman -
Bauer, Internet 2004) 7.e5 ct:Jd5
(7 ... tDe8 8.c4 f5 9.tDc3 g5 10.d5
tDg7 11.i.e3 f4 12.i.d2 White
has a powerful centre and a huge
lead in development, AIle -
Ciemnyjewski, corr. 1998. It is
not any better for Black to play:
8 ... d5, Erler - Karpoff, corr. 1984,
9.cxd5! 10.tDc3 11.
i.g5; 10 ... 1l.i.f4 and
White has a great space advan-
tage and good prospects for ini-
tiative on both flanks.) 8. g6
9.i.h6! (it is bad for White to play
the seemingly attractive line:
9.c4? tDb4 tD8c6, be-
cause now he must already think
about how to equalize, H.Hoff-
mann - Breuer, Goerlitz 1999)
9 ... ne8 10.a3 Morawietz -
Bohne, Herxheim 1993. White
has extra space and excellent
attacking chances.
6.e5 CDfd7
6 ... ct:Je4 7.CDbd2 tDxd2 (Black's
quite insufficient after the rest
ofthe moves: 7 ... a5? 8.tDxe4 dxe4
9.i.xe4 Gerke - Koch, Dort-
mund 2000, or 7 ... 5?, Hafner-
Schroeder, Hamburg 1997, 8.exf6
gxf6 9.tDxe4) 8.i.xd2 h6. This is
an attempt by Black to seize the
initiative on the kingside. (About
8 ... c5 9.c3 - see line a, chapter 3.
Black only weakens his dark
squares with the move: 8 ... g6,
Ebert - Butz, Gross Gerau 2000.
After 9.i.g5 i.e7 - it is even
45
Chapter 2
worse for Black to try: 9 ... t'td7
10.SLf6 Mg8 11.lLlg5 - 10.SLxe7
'flxe7 11.h4 Black can hardly
defend his kingside successfully.
After 8 ... lLlc6 9.0-0 iLe7 10.c3
t'td7 11.ctJel Black has no co-
unterplay at all, Vazelaki -
Seitani, Athens 1999. In answer
to 8 ... iLe7 White should better
play 9.b4!? c5 10.bxc5 bxc5 11.
dxc5 iLxc5 12.0-0 t'tc8 13.lLlg5
iLa6 14.t'th5 and he maintains
a powerful pressure on the king-
side, Doluhanova - Agudova,
Alushta 2005. After 8 ... t'td7,
Leitao - Mascarenhas, Sao Paulo
1999, it seems very good for
White to continue with: 9.b4!?
c5 10.c3 iLe7 11.0-01'.) 9.0-0
lLlc6 10.c3 g5 11.lLle1 h5 12.f4
Schmitz - Ziabari, Troisdorf
2000. Black's play was too risky
and it led to a great lag in devel-
opment and weakening of plenty
of important squares.
7.lLlg5!? iLe7
clearly worse.
After 7 ... c5? 8.ctJxe6 fxe6
9. t'th5+ ~ e 7 10.iLg5+ Black re-
signed in the game Mastro-
koukos - Klokas, Nikea 2002.
The move 7 ... t'te7?! loses a
pawn after 8.lLlxh7 Shipman -
Cooke, New York 1991.
It is also bad for Black to play
7 ... g6, because that move only
weakens the dark squares and
creates a target for White to at-
tack on the kingside. 8.h4! '{!:Je7
46
(8 ... h5? 9.lLlxe6+-; 8 ... lLlc6?! 9.c3
'{!:Je7 10.h5 JLg7 11.h6 Streitberg
- Nagrocka, Dortmund 1989;
9 ... iLe7 10.'{!:Jf3 iLxg5 11.iLxg5
Ostojic - Vlahovic, Belgrade
2005, White has the two bishop
advantage, extra space and an
easy attacking plan on the king-
side. His positional pressure will
be long-lasting.) 9.h5 iLg7 (After
9 ... iLh6 10.hxg6! .txg5 11J:txh7
:fS 12.f4 iLh4+ 1 3 . ~ f 1 ctJc6 14.
t'th5 White regains his piece
and remains with an extra pawn)
10.h6 iLfS, Bussek-Jaeger, Ger-
many 1995, and here the simple
move 11.lLlf3! emphasizes the
weakness of the dark squares on
Black's kingside.
8.t'tg4 h5
8 ... g6 9.h4 h5 10.t'th3 lLlf8
11. t'tf3 Gleizerov - Filipovic,
Ljubljana 2000.
9.t'tg3lLlfS, Comp Deep Jun-
ior - Akopian, Dortmund 2000.
N ow, after the natural move
lO.lLlf3t, White manages to ex-
change the dark squared bishops
and he maintains a powerful
pressure on the kingside.
Chapter 3 l.e4 b6 2.d4 itb7 3.itd3 e6 4.l1Jf3
c55.c3
5 ... ltJf6
About 5 ... d5 6.e5 - see 4 ... d5
5.e5 c5 6.c3, Chapter 2, line b5.
Black has also tried:
5 g6?! This move only weak-
ens the dark squares and White
should better exploit that with
the move: 6 . .ltf4! .ltg7 7 . .ltd6
Shankar-Jayaraj, Madras 1997;
5 ltJe7 6.h4! ltJbc6 (in answer
to 6 ... 'iff c7, Liebert - Milovanovic,
corr. 1985, it seems quite logical
for White to continue with his
kingside actions with: 7.h5!? d5
S.e5 cxd4 9.cxd4 .lta6 10.Ji.xa6
ctJxa6 1l.h6) 7.a3 d5 8.e5 c4
(S ... h6, Mrkvicka - Mehlhorn,
corr. 2000, 9.b4!; S ... l:i.cS 9.h5
cxd4 10.cxd4 ctJf5 1l.i..xf5 exf5
t:ld7 13.h6 Alonso -
Scholbach, Email 2000) 9.i..c2 h6
10.h5 'iffd7 1l.ctJh4 0-0-0 12.i..e3
f6 13.f4 'OttbS 14.ctJd2 'OttaS, Svesh-
nikov - Tseshkovsky, USSR
1980, and here White's simplest
way to obtain an overwhelming
advantage is: 15. t:le2! followed
by 0-0-0 and g4, so he pre-
serves a powerful pressure on
the kingside, while Black has no
counterplay at all;
5 ... c4?! This move reduces
the tension in the centre and
thus White has a free hand for
active actions on both flanks.
6.i..c2 'iffc7 (About 6 ... d5 7.e5 -
see 4 ... d5 5.e5 c5 6.c3 c4 7.i..c2
Chapter 2, variation b5; 6 ... b5
7.0-0 g6 8.l:i.el 9 . ..ltf4 d6
10.a4 a6 11.ctJa3, and Black can
hardly defend his queenside
weaknesses, because of his great
lag in development, Ruggeri -
Rota, Crema 2000. 6 ... ctJf6 7.e5
ltJd5 S.ltJbd2 b5 9.ctJe4 'iffc7?! 10.
ctJfg5! h6 l1.ctJxf7 12. t:lh5+
'it>gS, Stangl - Hoose, Bad Neu-
stadt 1990, and here White wins
with 13.ctJd6!, because Black is
forced to give up his queen, since
otherwise after: 13 ... ..ltxd6 14.
'iffeS+ i..f8 15.i..g6+- he simply
gets checkmated. White main-
47
Chapter 3
tains a dangerous attack after:
9 ... i.e7 10.i.g5 f6 l1.exf6 gxf6
12.ltJe5!-7. Evidently, Black's best
choice is the move 9 ... h6, but
even then after 10.b3!t his de-
fence remains extremely diffi-
cult.) 7.0-0 ltJe7 (It is hardly any
better for Black to play: 7 ... ltJf6
SJ!e1 d5 9.e5ltJfd7 10.ltJg5! i.e7
11. ti'h5, because White remains
with the two bishop advantage
and a dangerous kingside initia-
tive, Brueckner - Josuttis, Pin-
neb erg 1997. Or 7 ... i.e7
ltJf6 9.i.g5! d6 10.ltJbd2 b5 11.e5!
dxe5 12.dxe5 Kirsch - Happe,
Germany 1995. Following 9 ... d5
lO.e5 ltJg4 11.h3, White leads
in development and exerts a
powerful pressure on the king-
side, Astrom - Eriksson, Sollen-
tuna 1995.) SJ:te1 ltJg6 9.h4 h5
(White's initiative will be much
more effective in case he man-
ages to place a pawn on the h5-
square, for example: 9 ... 10.
h5 ltJf8 11.ltJbd2; 9 ... d6 10.h5
ltJe7 11. 12.ltJa3; 9 ... d5
10.h5ltJe7 11.ltJe5ltJbc6 12 . ..tf4;
11 ... f6 12.i.a4+ ltJbc6 13.ltJxc6
i.xc6 14.exd5 exd5 15 . ..tf4.
Black lags in development con-
siderably in all variations.) 10.
i.g5 ltJc6 11.ltJbd2 b5, Panno -
Sarkany, Los Polvorines 19S0,
and here after the simple move
12.e5, White has occupied the
centre and he is quite well pre-
pared to play on either side of the
board, while Black can hardly
find any counterplay;
5 ... 6.0-0
48
Black has plenty of possibilities
in this position, but they are ei-
ther quite dubious, or they sim-
ply transpose to lines that we
have already analyzed.
About 6 ... ltJf6 - see 5 ...
ltJf6 ti'c7 7.0-0; 6 ... d6 7.
ti'e2ltJd7 8.d5 - see 5 ... d6; 6 ... c4
7 . ..tc2 - see 5 ... c4 6 . ..tc2 7.
0-0.
The position after 6 ... ..te7
7. ti'e2 ltJf6 has been tested in
numerous games, but strangely
enough White has never played
S.e5!, for example, S ... CLJd5 (in
case of 8 ... ltJg8 9.CLJa3 White re-
mains with a huge lead in devel-
opment) 9.a3! and White is
threatening to capture the cen-
tralized enemy knight with the
move 10.c4, and Black's defence
against that seemingly primitive
threat is far from easy. For ex-
ample after: 9 .. 10.c4 ltJc7
11.CLJc3 Black's pieces on the
queenside are so discoordinated
that he has problems defending
against 12 . ..te4.
In case of 6 ... h6 CLJe7,
Vujicic - Dimitrijevic, Belgrade
2003, White's simple line 8.ltJa3!
a6 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.e5 CLJbc6 11.
ltJc4 enables him to occupy
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 4.tiJ{3 cS S.c3
plenty of important squares in
the centre.
The move 6 ... cxd4?! looks
quite dubious, because White has
excellent chances to dominate on
the key open c-file with: 7.cxd4
tiJf6 (after 7 ... d6 B.tiJc3ltJf6 9 . ..ig5
!ii..e7 11.e5! White's
lead in development was so over-
whelming that the game ended
in just several moves: 11...ltJd5
12.!ii..b5 ..ic6 13.ltJxd5 exd5 14.
J:.e1! !ii..xg5 15.exd6+ 'it>fB 16.
ltJxg5 1-0 Prevenios - Wall, corr.
1963) B.ltJc3 a6 9.!ii..g5 ltJc6, Ma-
chin - Khalid, Kuala Lumpur
1996, and here after 10Jlc1!
White completes his piece-devel-
opment and preserves the option
to break in the centre.
6 ... ltJe7 7.ltJa3! a6 8.dxc5 bxc5,
Ramos - Popp, Email 1998 (It is
not better for Black to play:
8 ... 9.ltJc4 10 . .ie3 ltJcB
1l.ltJd4, because White main-
tains his huge lead in develop-
ment.) and here White can play
the simple line: 9.e5ltJbc6 10.lIel
ltJg6 11.lbc4;
5 ... cxd4 6.cxd4
About 6 ... lbf6 - see
5 ... lbf6;
6 ... 7.tiJc3 lbe7 (7 ... tiJf6
- see 5 ... tiJf6; 7 ... h6 8.0-0
tiJf6 9. - see 5 ... ltJf6) 8.a3
i.xc3+ 9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0 and
Black has no compensation for
White's couple of powerful bish-
ops, Huesmann - Wauthier, Bel-
gium 1992;
6 ... !ii..a6 7.i.xa6 lbxa6 8.0-0
lbf6 9.lbc3 ..ib4 10.e5 and White
has a huge lead in development
and he dominates in the cen-
tre, Braga - Del Campo, Pico
1996;
After 6 ... g6 7.0-0 ..ig7 8.tiJc3
lbe7, Zavgorodny - Kutsyh,
Nikolaev 2001, White can em-
phasize the weakness of the dark
squares by bringing his knight to
the d6-outpost: 9.lbb5 0-0 10.
ltJd6 .ia6 1l . ..if4;
The move 6 ... h6 - is too slow.
7.0-0 lbc6 8.lbc3ltJb4 9.!ii..b1lbf6,
Hebden - J agerflod, Ramsgate
1984. After 10.a3lbc6 11.e5 tiJg8
12.d5 Black might not even
manage to complete his develop-
ment;
6 ... lbc6 7.lbc3 J:.cB (Black only
loses time after: 7 ... lbb4 8 . .ie2
.ie7 9.a3 tiJa6 10.0-0 lbf6, Gruss
- Bantle, Plzen 1998. In case of
1l.e5lbd5 12.lbxd5 exd5 13 . .ie3
ltJc7 14.lbd2 White's advantage
is stable, because of his domi-
nance in the centre and his
enemy's weak d5-pawn. 7 ... d6,
Tognella - Szirmai, Budapest
2002, B.d5 exd5 9.exd5 10 .
.ie3 tiJe5 1l.!ii..b5+ 'It>dB 12.0-0.
White's development is superior
and Black's king is stranded in
49
Chapter 3
the centre. It is hardly any bet-
ter for Black to play: 9 ... ltJeS
ltJd7 11.0-0, because
thus he can not complete easily
his development.) 8.0-0 .ii.d6 (it
is worse for Black to follow with
8 ... d6?! dS 10.exdS exdS
11. lIe 1+ 12.ii.f5l:!a8 13.tiJeS
1-0 Pandavos - Trikaliotis, Ath-
ens 1989) 9.dSlDeS 10.dxe6 dxe6
11..Si.bS+ 12.i..f4 lDxf3+ 13.
"i;'txf3 i..xf4 and White
has maintained a huge lead in
development, Martinez Uceda-
Vicioso Sanchez, Email 2000;
6 ... d6 7.0-0 .te7 (Black
should not opt for: 7 ... g6 8.lDc3
i..g7, Dubois - Blackburne, Lon-
don 1862, since the line 9.i..gS
lDe7 emphasizes the
weakness of the dark squares,
because of White's superior de-
velopment and his powerful cen-
tre.) 8.ltJc3lDf6 0-0 10."i;'tc2
ltJc6 Il.a3 Doric - Fenske,
Schwarzach 1999. White is now
quite well prepared for active
actions in the centre;
5 ... d6 6.0-0 ltJd7 (6 ... ltJf6
- see S ... ltJf6 d6 7.
0-0; 6 ... ite7 - see S ... i..e7;
6 ... ltJe7?! 7.itbS+! itc6 8.i..xc6+
ltJbxc6 9.dS exdS 10.exdS ltJaS
1l.l:!el and White leads in de-
velopment and he has extra
space, moreover Black's king has
no safe shelter, Rijnaarts - Van
Beek, Leiden 1997. It is even
worse for Black to play: 7 ... lDbc6
S.dS+-; or 7 ... ltJd7 S.dxcS.)
(About 7 ... lDgf6 S.lIdl
- see 5 ... lDf6; 7 ... ite7 S.lIdl- see
so
5 ... i..e7. Following 7 ... a6, Wit-
tmann - Herrmann Velden 1995,
White should try to prepare the
pawn-break e4-eS, occupying
additional space. The best way
to do that is to play the move
S.l:!dl. In case Black plays
7 ... h6, Polak - Stratil, Czech Re-
public 1991, it is again good for
White to continue with S.l:i.dl
having the idea to play e4-eS up
his sleeve. In answer to 7 ... "i;'tc7,
Ubezio - Tagnon, Forli 1993,
White's simplest way to main-
tain his advantage is: 8.dS eS
9.b4 and he has a powerful ini-
tiative on the queenside, while
Black has no counterplay. It is
even worse for Black to play:
S ... i..e7 9.dxe6 fxe6l0.lDgS i..xgS
S . .tf4ltJg6 9 . .tg3 .te7
10.lDbd2 0-0 l1.eS dS (after
1l ... .txf3 12.lDxf3 dS, Majer -
Movsesian, Prague 1995, White
should strive to open files in the
centre, because of his two bishop
advantage: 13.c4 dxc4 14.i..xc4
cxd4 12.lDellIeS 13.f4
f5 14.exf6 i..xf6 15.lDef3 Danie-
lian - Khachian, Pasanauri 1997.
Black must worry about his
weak e6-pawn, his vulnerable e5-
square, as well as his bad bishop
on b7 and his compromised
kingside;
5 ... .te7 6.0-0 d6 (About 6 ...
ltJf6 7. - see 5 ... lDf6; 6 ...
7."i;'te2! ltJf6 - see 5 ... 6.0-0
ite7 7. 6 ... g5? This idea
is too dubious for Black - White
develops his pieces in the centre,
while Black only weakens his
l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3 . .i.d3 e6 4.0,(3 cS S.c3 tiJf6 6. 'ffte2
kingside without any real attack-
ing chances on the kingside.
7 . .l::re1 h5. This is the logical con-
sequence of the operation that
Black has started with his sixth
move. 8.d5! g4 9.tiJe5 exd5 10.
exd5 i..xd5 11.tiJg6! fxg6 12.
i..xg6+ i..f7 13.i..xf7 + <j;;xf7 14.
'd5+- Prie - Amiri, Fouesnant
1997.) 7.'ffte2 tiJd7 (7".tiJf6 8.l:td1
- see 5".tiJf6) 8J:td1 'fftc7, Klinger
- BaUmann, Gausdal 1986 (It is
worse for Black to play here
8".h6, Meyer - Schnaebele, Ger-
many 1988, because after 9.e5
dxe5 10.dxe5 'fftc7 1l.tiJbd2 it is
far from clear how Black can
develop his kingside.) 9.e5 cxd4
10.cxd4 ':c8 11.tiJc3 dxe5 (after
ll".i..xf3 12. 'fftxf3 dxe5 13.d5
White's compensation for the
sacrificed pawn is more than
sufficient, because of his over-
whelming lead in development
and his couple of powerful bish-
ops) 12.dxe5 i..xf3 13. 'fftxf3 tiJxe5
14.i..b5+ <j;;f8 15. Black's
king is stranded in the centre
and he has not even completed
his development, while White
can boast about his two bishop
advantage.
6.'e2
with the lines: a) 6 ... d5, b)
6 ... cxd4 and c) 6 ... .i.e7.
Black has also tried in this
position the moves:
6 ... 'c8 - with the idea to
trade the light squared bishops
after i..a6. 7.d5! d6 (7 ... .i.a6
8.c4) 8.i..b5+ tiJbd7 9.dxe6 fxe6
10.e5! i..xf3 (10".dxe5? 1l.tiJxe5
i..xg2?! 12.l:g1 i.d5 13.c4 i.b7
14.i..g5+-) 11.'fftxf3 dxe5 12.tiJd2
i.e7 (12 ... a6 13.i..c4) 13 . .lta6
'fftd8 14.'c6 Baklan - Kopylov,
Donetzk 1998. White exerts a
powerful pressure along the
weakened light squares as weU
as against his enemy's weak cen-
tral pawns. His two bishop ad-
vantage is very promising too;
6" .c4 7.i..c2 b5 (Black's other
possibilities are worse for him:
7 ... Jie7?! Ziane - Butny, Oak
Park 1996, because after the
simple line: 8.e5 tiJd5 9. 'fftxc4
White wins a pawn and Black
can hardly claim any compensa-
tion for it, for example: 9".i..a6
10. 'b3 tiJc6 12. 'fftd1
0-0 13.Jid3 and White evacu-
ates his king away from the cen-
tre quite easily. After: 7".d5 8.e5
tZJfd7 9.ltJg5! White's pressure
on the kingside is overwhelming,
Stoppel - Scheyka, Germany
1994. Black can hardly equalize
with: 7".'c7 8.Jig5 i..e7 9.ltJbd2
b5, Connell - Bisby, Hastings
1995, because after: 10.e5 ltJd5
11.i..xe7 ltJxe7 12.a4 White
dominates in the centre and he
can seize the initiative on both
51
Chapter 3
sides of the board.) 8.0-0 .t.e7
9 . .t.g50-0 10.ttJbd2 d6 1l.e5 dxe5
12.dxe5
and White's attacking chances
are just excellent, Cabrera -
Velez, Isla Guitart 1994;
6 ... 7.0-0 ttJc6 (7 ... .t.e7
8.e5! - see 6 ... .t.e7 7.0-0 fic7
8.e5!; The strange piece-sacrifice
7 ... ttJg4? 8.h3 h5 was tested in
the game Rohl - Denson, Dos
Hermanas 2003. White could
have captured that knight with-
out too much of a risk, for ex-
ample: 9.hxg4 hxg4 10.ttJe5 cxd4
1l.cxd4 lDc6 12 . .t.f4 ttJxd4 13.
In answer to 7 ... d6, in
the game Prueske - Maisels,
Germany 2002, White obtained
a great advantage occupying
plenty of space with the help of
the move e5: 8J:te1 ttJbd7 9.e5
dxe5 10.dxe5 ttJd5 1l.a3 g6 12.c4
ttJe7 13.ttJc3 a6 14.ttJe4 - and
the powerful centralization of
White's pieces restricts Black's
possibilities considerably. Mter:
7 ... d5 8.e5 ttJe4 9.ttJbd2 ttJxd2 10.
.t.xd2 ttJc6 1l.I:tab1 .t.e7, Palau-
Berra, Rosario 2002, the stan-
dard move for White 12.b4t de-
prives Black of any counterplay
whatsoever.) 8.d5 exd5 (It is
hardly any better for Black to
try: 8 ... tDe5 9.ttJxe5 10.f4
fih5 11. ttJxh5 12.e5 and
White squeezes Black's kingside
completely, due to the terrible
threat g4.) 9.exd5+ tDe7 10.c4 d6
1l.ttJc3 Buchnicek - Nedela,
Czech Republic 2004. Black's
defence is extremely difficult,
52
because of the lack of space and
the problematic development of
his pieces;
6 tDc6 7.d5 tDa5 (White's ini-
tiative develops unopposed after:
7 ... ttJe7 8.c4 d6 9.ttJc3 e5, Feller
- Gazic, Budapest 2001. White
can now activate his pieces quite
energetically after: 10 . .t.c2! ttJg6
11..t.a4+ ttJd7 12.ttJg5! .t.e7 13.
fih5. Black has problems to
complete his development. For
example he loses after: 12 ... h6
because of 13.ttJxf'7! 14. fig4
with a non-standard double at-
tack against d7 and e6. It is too
bad for Black to play: 8 ... ttJg6?
9.e5 ttJg4 10.h3 ttJh6 1l.ttJc3 ttJf5
12 . .t.xf5 exf5 13.0-0 .t.e7 14.
because he is left with al-
most nothing to move, Baklan -
Hermesmann, Hamburg 1999.)
8.c4 exd5, Baches Garcia - Car-
bonell Bofill, Barbera del Valles
2003 (8 ... b5 - this is an attempt
by Black to seize the initiative,
but it can be easily parried by
White, because of the misplaced
black knight on the a5-square.
9.cxb5 c4 10 . .t.c2 .t.b4+ 11..t.d2
.t.xd2+, Maccapani - Isonzo, San
Marino 1998. Now, it is very good
for White to continue with:
12.ttJbxd2 exd5 13.exd5+ fie7
14.b4; 13 ... 'it>f8 14.d6 15.
h4. Mter 8 ... d6 9.ttJc3 e5 10.0-0
g6 11..t.c2 .t.c8 12.a3 White be-
gins active actions on the queen-
side and Black has not even com-
pleted his development yet,
Roemhild - Grote, Lippstadt
2000.) 9.exd5+ fie7 10 . .lte3 ttJg4
1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.Ci'J{3 c5 5.c3 Ci'Jf6 6.
(10 ... g6 1l.Ci'Jc3 i..g7 12.d6!)
1l.i..f4 12.'it>xe2 0-0-0
(12 ... d6 13.l2Jc3) 13.Ci'Jg5 lIe8+
14.'lt>3l2Jh6 15.l2Jc3 f6 16.lIhel.
Black has no space and his pieces
are discoordinated, so his de-
fence is extremely difficult;
6 ... d6 7.0-0 h6, De Vreesse -
Gommers, Gent 1996 (About
7 ... i.e7 - see 6 ... i.e7; the
move 7 ... g6?! - weakens the dark
squares on the kingside and does
not contribute to Black's devel-
opment. 8.l2Jbd2 l2Jbd7 9.e5
Hanisch - Morlock, Pforzheim
1999. 7 ... l2Jbd7 8.nd1 cxd4 9.cxd4
i.e7 10.l2Jc3t S.Vajda - Sergeeva,
Baile Herculane 1994. White en-
joys a huge lead in development
and he can seize the initiative on
both sides of the board.) Now, it
is good for White to follow with:
8.lid1 - he thus prepares the
pawn-break e4-e5 and it is use-
ful for his rook to occupy the d-
file, for example: 8 ... l2Jbd7 9.
l2Jbd2 i.e7 (After 9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4
.l:!.c8, White should not be in a
hurry to start active actions and
he should develop his queenside
first. 11.h4 i.e7 12.i.b2t. Black
has no possibilities for active ac-
tions and it is too dubious for him
to try, for example: 12 ... d5 13.e5
Ci'Jh5 14. because he is now
forced to weaken additionally his
kings ide due to the threat g4.)
10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5l2Jd5 12.l2Je4
"fflc7 (Black is trying to exploit
the temporary vulnerability of
White's e5-pawn) 13.i..b5! iLc6
14.iLxc6 15.c4. All Black's
pieces are quite passive; more-
over White enjoys a great space
advantage.
a) 6 ... d5 7.e5
7 ... l2Je4
In answer to 7 ... l2Jfd7, White
should better follow with 8.iLg5!
After White's central pawns have
been fixed on dark squares,
Black's move 8 ... with the
idea to try to exchange the light
squared bishops seems to be the
most purposeful. (White main-
tains a great advantage after the
trade of the dark squared bish-
ops: 8 ... i.e7 9.i.xe7 10.
0-0 Ci'Jc6 0-0 12.l2Jbd2t-
and Black's bishop on b7 has no
good prospects. In the variation:
8 ... 9.0-0 l2Jc6 10.l2Jbd2 h6
11.i..e3 0-0-0 12.h4! c4 - after
12 ... cxb4 13.cxb4 i..xh4
White preserves excellent at-
tacking chances - 13.i..c2 g5
14.b5l2Ja5, Konstantinopolsky-
L.Muchnik, Moscow 1966, and
White maintains his advantage
with energetic actions on the
kingside: 15.h4! g4 16.l2Jh2 h5
17.iLg5 :1e8 18. i..g7 19.
.l:!.ae1 and Black's pieces are iso-
53
Chapter 3
lated on the queenside, so he will
hardly manage to defend his
kingside, or 15 ... gxh4 16.4Jxh4
ii.a3 17.'1;;rh5! .l:.df8 18 . .l:.abl
and Black has great problems to
defend against the march of
White's f-pawn. It is even worse
for Black to play: 17 ... 18.
'i;;lxf7 and he will have problems
defending his e6 and h6-pawns.)
9.0-0! Morales - Cardenas,
Havana 1999 (It is worse for
Black to play 9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4
i.a6, because of llJlc1! 'i;;lb7
12. 'i;;lc2 h6 g5
4Jxa6 15.i.g3, and the exchange
of Black's bad bishop cannot
equalize for him, because his
kings ide has been considerably
weakened. It is better for Black
to play immediately: 9 ... h6! 10.
i.f4! cxd4! 1l.cxd4 12.l:tc1
'i;;lb713.4Jc3 i.xd3 14.thd3;t, but
White still remains with a stable
advantage, because of his supe-
riority in the centre, excellent
development and his domination
on the c-file. It is too bad for
Black to try: 10 ... g5? i.a6
12.4Je1!? i.xd3 13.4Jxd3 with the
idea to follow with f4. Black
should not experiment with: 10 ...
i.a6? 1l.c4! dxc4 cxd4
"1;;rxa6?? 14."1;;re4+-; 13 ...
4Jxa6 14.4Jxd4 i.e7 15.4Jc3.)
10.c4! - this is White's most en-
ergetic move. He has a much bet-
ter development, so he should
attempt to open files in the cen-
tre: 10 ... dxc4 (it is much worse
for Black to play: 10 ... cxd4 1I.
cxd5 4Jc5 12 . .ixa6 "1;;rxa6 13. 'i;;lxa6
54
4Jbxa6 14.d6, because he has
great problems to develop his
kingside) 1l.i.xc4 ii.xc4 12. "1;;rxc4
4Jc6 (Black cannot manage to
simplify the position with the
move 12 ... 'i;;la6, on the contrary
- that move only helps White to
centralize his queen: 13. "1;;rc2 4Jc6
14. "1;;re4) 13.dxc5 .ixc5 (After
13 ... 4Jcxe5 14.4Jxe5 4Jxe5 15."1;;re4
f6 16.cxb6 axb6 17J:tcl Black's
centralized knight does not com-
pensate the weaknesses on b6
and e6; moreover his king re-
mains still stranded in the cen-
tre, so White has a stable advan-
tage as a result.) 14."1;;re4 0-0
15.4Jc3;t. White has preserved
his space advantage and his
pieces are developed quite har-
moniously.
S.4Jbd2 4Jxd2
Mter 8 ... cxd4 9.4Jxe4 dxe4
Black will have no
compensation for the pawn that
he is bound to lose quite soon,
Hiltmann - Koch, Dortmund
200l.

9 ... 4Je6
About 9 ... .ie7 - see variation
e5a.
l.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4Jbf3 c5 5.c3 CDf6 6.
The move 9 ... a5, Eliet - Ger-
mes, Chambery 1994, enables
White to play aggressively: 10.
CDg5 iLe7 g6 iLfS

Black's purposeful move 9 ...
Hawes - Adebayo, Elista
1998, enables White to begin ac-
tive actions on the kingside with:
10.CDg5! (it is worse for White to
play 10.b4 SLa6! 11.b5?! c4=)
10 ... SLa6 l1."!';';rh5 "!';';rb7 12.SLxa6
CDxa6 13.0-0.
9 ... h6 - this is an attempt by
Black not to let White's knight
to the g5-square, Sosa - Slimani,
Dubai 1986, 10.b4!? That is a
standard measure by White to
restrict Black's counterplay on
the queenside, before starting an
attack on the kingside. After for
example: 10 ... c4 l1.SLc2 12.
h4t White maintains his space
advantage and a powerful king-
side initiative, while his oppo-
nent has no counterplay at all.
It is hardly better for Black
to try: 9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4 CDc6 11.
because White can easily
sustain his initiative on both
sides of the board, while Black
is almost helpless, Mariani -
Scialdone, Italy 1995.
The move 9 ... c4 - has been
tested in practice quite often,
nevertheless it is illogical, be-
cause Black's light squared
bishop would remain out of ac-
tion for a long time and White's
kingside initiative develops un-
opposed. 10.iLc2 iLe7 (In answer
to 10 ... lL:lc6, Gruskovnjak - Sur-
bek, Portoroz 1995, it is very good
for White to follow with: 11.CDg5!
SLe7 12. t'th5 g6 13. t'th6 .i.fS 14.
White has provoked weak-
ening of Black's kingside and he
is now quite well prepared for an
onslaught against it after for ex-
ample: 14 ... SLe7 15. b5 16.
l1.h4 b5 12.CDg5 h6, Krug
- Barnstedt, Germany 2001,13.
g6 (13 ... 0-0 14.lbxe6! fxe6
15. .l:i.f5 16.g4+-) 14.SLxg6
fxg6 15."!';';rxg6 16."!';';rxe6 <:Ji;c7
17.lL:lfl. Black has great prob-
lems to counter White's power-
ful passed pawns on the king-
side.
10.a3!
This is a very purposeful
move. White intends to pre-
pare b4 and that would pre-
vent Black's counterplay on the
queenside.
10 ... a5
The other possibilities for
Black are clearly worse:
10 ... "!';';rc8?! l1.b4! .i.e7 12.0-0
0-0 13.CDg5 SLxg5 14.iLxg5 and
White has the two bishop advan-
tage and excellent attacking
chances, Krivec - Kovacic, Bled
1999;
10 ... c4 - this move gives
White a free hand for aggressive
actions on the kingside: 11 . .i.c2
b5 12.lL:lg5 h5 13.h4 SLe7 14.
Dochev - Siempos, Halkida 2001.
1l.h4 h5
11 ... SLe7 h6 (12 ... 0-0?
13.iLxh7+-) 13.M:g3 'l!t>fS 14.h5.
12.0-0 c4
In answer to the more logical
55
Chapter 3
move 12 ... .ie7, it deserves atten-
tion for White to sacrifice a pawn
with: 13 . .ig5!? .ixg5 14.CtJxg5
cxd4 15.cxd4 CtJxd4 16. CtJc6
17 . .ib5 l:tc8 Black's
pieces are discoordinated and his
king is quite unsafe. White
therefore has an excellent com-
pensation for the pawn, since it
is too dangerous for Black to
castle, for example: 18 ... 0-0 19.
g6 20 . .ixc6 lhc6 21JIxc6
.ixc6 22.CtJxe6! .ib5! 23.
fxe6 and White has an
overwhelming advantage, be-
cause he dominates on the only
open file.
I3 . .ic2 a4 I4 .ig5
Black has no counterplay
whatsoever, while White easily
exchanges Black's only active
piece opening the position in the
centre and on the kingside:
I4 ... .ie7 I5.I!.ael I6 . .ixe7
CtJxe7 I7.4Jg5! CtJg8 h5
I9.f4 g6 20.f5! gxf5 21..ixf5
0-0-0 (Black loses too after: 21...
exf5 22.e6 fxe6 23.Itxe6+ 4Je7 24.
Itfe1 J::ta6 25J:txe7 26J:txe7
ct;;xe7 ct;;d7
22 . .ih3 4Jh6 23.Itxf7 1-0 Leitao
- Mascarenhas, Sao Paulo 2000.
56
b) 6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4
Black has two basic lines
here: hI) 7 ... i..h4 and h2) 7 ..
4Jc6.
He has also tried in practice:
7 ... d5 8.e5 CtJe4 (About 8 ... .ih4
- see 7 ... .ib4; 8 ... 4Jfd7 9 . .ig5!
.ie7 10 . .ixe7 1l.4Jc3 a6 12.
0-04Jc6 13.a3 and Black's light
squared bishop has no good pros-
pects and he cannot create any
effective counterplay, Samraoui
- Gillen, EmaiI2000.)9.0-0.ie7
10.4Jbd2 4Jxd2 11..ixd2 0-0
12.b4! This strong move prevents
Black's light pieces from any ac-
tive actions. 12 ... a5 13.b5 4Jd7
14.4Je1l:.e8 15.f4 f5 16.exf6 .ixf6
17.4Jf3 and White's advantage
is quite stable, because his light
pieces are much more active than
Black's, moreover Black's king
position has been compromised,
Pastor Pons - Mimon, Spain
1993;
Following 7 ... Black in-
tends to trade the light squared
bishops and then enter a pawn-
structure similar to the French
Defence. This however, takes too
much time and Black fails to play
d5 altogether. 8.0-0 .ia6 9.4Jc3
1.e4 b6 2.d4 !#..b7 3.!#..d3 e6 4.tDf3 c5 5.c3 tD{6 6.
!#..xd3 10. tDa6 (10 ...
11.d5 tDa6 12.i.g5 tDc5 13.
Wagman - Turchi, Caorle 1981)
11.a3! tDc7 12.i.g5 13.
i..e7 14.:tac1 h6 15.i.xf6 .txf6
16.d5 Black has managed to
trade a couple oflight pieces, but
that has hardly facilitated his
defence, because the rest of his
pieces are definitely misplaced,
Simonovic - Batanjac, Golubac
2003;
The move 7 ... .te7 does not
seem logical, since Black thus
reduces the tension in the cen-
tre. White gets the wonderful c3-
square for his knight as a result,
because Black has refrained
from playing the active move
7 ... and he has placed his
bishop to a passive position in-
stead. 8.tDc3! (This move is much
more precise than 8.0-0 trans-
posing to the line 6 ... i.e7 7.0-0
cxd4, because now Black cannot
play anymore the variation 8 ... d5
9.e5 tDe4; moreover he must con-
stantly worry about the possibil-
ity of White playing d5.) 8 ... d6 (It
is too bad for Black to play in-
stead: 8 ... 9.0-0 0-0 10.i.g5
h6 11..th4 lie8 12 . .l:.acl and
White has already completed his
development, while Black has
problems to accomplish that,
Popchev - Batanjac, Nis 1996.
Mter 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.l:!.d1
tDbd7 ll.e5!? .i.xf3 12.gxf3 tDe8,
Balzar - Hols, Nordwalde 1988,
the simple move 13.f4 provides
White with a huge space advan-
tage and a couple of powerful
bishops. On top of that, he pre-
serves excellent attacking
chances having in his plan the
pawn-breaks f5 or d5. Black will
hardly manage to exploit White's
weakened king position, since he
does not have a single active
piece at the moment.) 9.0-0
tDbd7 10 . .tf4 0-0, Schmid -
Mischustov, Abensberg 1987 (In
answer to 10 ... a6 11.h3 0-0, Rou-
megous - Dewitte, Belfort 2004,
it deserves attention for White
to continue with 12.a4!?, because
Black has no active play at all.
His attempt to exploit the weak-
ness of the b4-square with the
move 12 ... tDb8 leads to a very
favourable opening of the game
for White after: 13JHd1 tDc6
14.e5. The other possibility for
Black is too slow: 10 ... tDrn, Karls-
son - Knutsson, Karlskrona
1997, and the simplest way for
White to exploit that is by play-
ing: n.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 tDd5
13.tDxd5 .txd5 14 . .l::!.fdl. Black
has problems to evacuate his
king away from the centre, for
example: 14 .. J::lc8? 15.i.b5+ tDd7
16 J::txd5! exd5 17.e6+-; or 14 ...
tDd7 15.i.e4! .i.xe4 16.
17. or 14 ... tDg6 15 . .i.b5+
..t>rn 16 . .i.e3.) White can try now
to seize the initiative on both
sides of the board and the most
logical way to do that is by play-
ing: 11.:fd1!, with the following
eventual developments: ll ... a6
12.e5 dxe5 (12 ... tDh5 13 . .i.e3 g6
14 . .i.h6) 13.dxe5 tDd5 14.tDxd5
exd5 (14 ... .i.xd5 15.i.xa6 .i.xf3
57
Chapter 3
16.gxf3 17.i.b5) 15.tLld4.
White maintains a stable edge
due to his extra space and the
great activity of his pieces.
hI) 7 ... 8.tLlc3
8 ... d5
This seems like an improve-
ment for Black in comparison to
line a - because he has already
developed his bishop to b4; nev-
ertheless the premature ex-
change on the d4-square enables
White to exploit the open c-file
and to seize the initiative on the
queenside.
The rest of the moves for
Black lead to an overwhelming
advantage for White quite eas-
ily:
8 ... a5?! 9.0-0 0-0 iLe7
ll.e5 tLld5, Breuer - Rudolph,
Gruenheide 1996, and now after:
g6 'xe7 14.
i.c4 White wins the central
pawn;
8 ... 'c8?! - Black loses too
much time by trying to exchange
the light squared bishops: 9.iLd2
i..a6 10.i..xa6 Il.tLlb5 i.xd2
12.tLlxd2 Bebersdorf - EI-
zinger, Bayern 1996, 13.a4 and
58
Black's king remains stranded in
the centre for too long, while
White maintains excellent at-
tacking chances;
8 ... 'c7?! i.xc3 10.i.xc3
d6 11.l:lc1 12.0-0 Kalwa-
sinski - Schmidt, Copenhagen
1997. White preserves a power-
ful positional pressure with his
mobile pawn-centre and two
powerful bishops;
8 ... d6 9.0-0 O-O? (This move
enables White to sacrifice mate-
rial in a typical fashion, but even
after the best for Black: 9 ... i.xc3
10.bxc3 tLlbd7 ll.i.a3 'c7 12.
e5, his king remains in the cen-
tre and the a3-fS diagonal is too
weak - the absence of the dark
squared bishop is quite telling,
Yagupov - Merzliakov, St. Peters-
burg 2004.) 10.e5! dxe5 11.dxe5
i.xc3 12.bxc3 tLld5 13.i.xh7+-
White's attack is quickly check-
mating, Magide - Saiz, Terrassa
1996;
8 ... h6 9.0-0 (Once again it is
not good for Black to follow with
9 ... i.xc3, because after 10.bxc3
0-0 H.e5 tLlh7 12.i.a3 :e8 13.
i.d6 White's powerful dark
squared bishop exerts a tremen-
dous pressure against Black's
position, Fomina - Mariano,
Manila 1992.) 9 ... 0-0 10.e5 tLle8
ll.a3 12.d5 exd5 13.tLld4
Franco -Valle, Seville 2004.
White has excellent attacking
chances;
8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 tLlc6? (about
9 ... d6 - see 8 ... d6) 10.e5 tLle8
11.i.xh 7 + (in case Black
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 4.tiJf3 cS S.c3 tiJf6 6. 'f:te2
captures the bishop, he cannot
save the game even if he sacri-
fices his queen: 11...'it>xh7 12.
tiJg5+ 13. 'f:td3+ f5 14.tiJe2!
15 . .lii.xg5 'it>xg5 16.
'It>g61B.tiJf4+)
12 . .lii.c2 .i.e7 13.tiJg5 1-0 Otto -
Rudolph, Leipzig 1997.
9.e5 tiJe4 10.0-0!
White sacrifices a pawn and
he remains with a huge lead in
development and a long-lasting
initiative.
10 .. tiJxe3
10 ... .lii.xc3?! - this capture is
even worse for Black: l1.bxc3
tiJxc3 12. tiJc6 13 . .i.a3 b5,
Diaz - Bolivar, Barranquilla
1999. White now recaptures his
pawn and he maintains his ad-
vantage, because of the mis-
placed black bishop on the b7-
square: 14.l:tfc1 b4 (White's at-
tack is quite dangerous after:
14 ... 15 . .i.d6 tiJe4 16.i.xe4
dxe4 15 . .i.xb4 tiJxb4

1l.bxe3.i.e7
It is quite questionable for
Black to play here: 11 ... i.xc3,
Karlik - Snorek, Czech Republic
2000. Mter 12 . .lii.b5+! .i.c6 (12 ...
tiJd7 14.J::!.acl +-) 13.
.lii.xc6+ tiJxc6 14. 'f:tc2 tiJxd4 15.
tiJxd4 .i.xal 16.'f:tc6+ 17.
IBJhal .l::.cB 19.'f:tb5
'f:tc7 20Jldl White's two active
light pieces are clearly stronger
than Black's rook on hB.
12 . .lii.e3 tiJe6
It is too risky for Black to fol-
low with 12 ... 0-0, because after
13.tiJd2 14.J::!.acl tiJc6 (14 ... f5
15.exf6 i.xf6 16. 'f:tg4 t) 15. 'f:th5
g6 (15 ... h6? 16 . .lii.xh6!) 16.'f:th3t
White preserves superior attack-
ing chances.
13.tbd2 %leS
White maintains a powerful
pressure even after: 13 ... h5 14.
tiJb3.ucB 15.a4.
14.tiJb3.lii.a3
g6 16.i.g5 Kupo-
rosov - Turikov, St Petersburg
2001. White's centre is very solid
and he can easily seize the ini-
tiative on both sides ofthe board.
b2) 7 ... tiJe6 S.a3
(diagram)
S ... .lii.e7
The move B ... tiJa5?! - is a typi-
cal loss of time. After 9.tiJbd2
.lii.e7 10.0-0 0-0 11.M tiJc6 12.
59
Chapter 3
i.b2 Black is deprived of any
counterplay, Houpt - Maciu-
lewicz, Email 1998.
The possibility 8 ... g6?! -
weakens the dark squares. There
was only one game played in that
line and Black fianchettoed his
knight in it, but his position re-
mained clearly worse after that:
9.tLJc3 d5 10.e5 tLJh5 11.g4 tLJg7
12.Sl.h6 Leimeister - Stock,
Zeilsheim 2000.
Mter 8 .... fftc7 9.tLJc3 tLJa5 10.
Ji.g5 tLJb3 llJ:td111c8 12.0-0 it
is quite unclear how Black can
develop his kingside, because his
knight on b3 remains out of play,
Kaufman - Tesh, Fredericksburg
1998.
It is not good for Black to play:
8 .. J!i.c8, Romanova-Abramchuk,
Kiev 1997, because after 9.tLJc3
tLJa5 (9 ... Sl.e7 10.e5 tLJd5 10.tLJxd5
exd5 11.b4) 10.Sl.f4 - White
has a huge space advantage, a
superior development and a mo-
bile pawn-centre.
8 ... d5 9.e5 tLJe4 (after 9 ...
tLJd7, White's plan to neutralize
Black's activity on the queenside
is quite clear and his initiative
on the kingside might become
really dangerous for Black: 10.
60
0-0 iLe7 1l.b4 a6 12.tLJbd2 0-0
13.tLJb3 b5 14.iLd2 tLJb6 15.4Jc5
l:Ib8 16.iLc2 tLJc4 g6 18.
i.h6 Vooremaa - Ivanovic,
Tallinn 1979) 10.tLJbd2 tLJxd2
(The strange move 10 ... tDg5 is in
fact only a loss of time after:
1l.b4 SLe7 12.h4 tDxf3+ 13.tLJxf3
14.iLf4. White's advantage
is just overwhelming, because
of his powerful kingside initia-
tive and Black's non-existent
counterplay. It is quite instruc-
tive to see how White material-
izes all that: 14 ... f5 15. h6
16.h5! nc8 17.l:Ig1! tLJd8 18.g4
fxg4 19.nxg4+- Ostojic - Marko-
vic, Jahorina 2000.) 1l.iLxd2 Sl.e7
12.b4 a6 13.0-0 0-0 14JUci b5
15.nc3 h6 16.SLc2 Damjanovic
- Cafferty, Birmingham 1977.
Black's pieces are quite dis-
coordinated, he has no active
possibilities and his kingside has
been weakened considerably.
White easily manages to orga-
nize a decisive attack in a flash.
9.4Jc3 tLJa5
Mter 9 ... d6 10.0-0 a6, Rida-
meya Tatche - Koksch, Dresden
2004, it looks quite attractive for
White to prepare a break in the
centre with the help of the move:
11.l:td1, for example: 11...0-0
12.e5 4Jd7 g6 14.SLh6.
In answer to 9 ... 0-0, Mescher
- Seberry, Toowoomba 1986, it is
very strong for White to follow
with 10.e5, for example: 10 ... 4Je8
(it is too bad for Black to play:
10 ... tLJd5 1l.4Jxd5 exd5 12.h4!
h6 13J:th30 and White's attack
3.Ji..d3 e6 4.ti'J{3 c5 5.c3 0,f6 6. 'e2 Ji..e7 7.0-0
is just crushing, while 12 ...
llc8 loses after: 'litxh7
14.0,g5+-) 1l.d5 exd5 12.0,xd5
Black's pieces are misplaced,
while the position is open and
White has an important two
bishop advantage.
White's game is very easy af-
ter: 9 ... d5 1O.e5 0,d7 11.0-0 a6
12. 'e3 b5, Melzer - Straub,
Mannheim 1994. It is now quite
logical for White to follow with
bringing his queen to
the g-file and Black is bound to
face serious problems.

White provokes weakening of
Black's kingside and that might
become a telling factor in the fu-
ture battle.
10 ... h6 d6 12.b4 0,c6
13.d5 exd5 14.exd5 0,b8,
Timman - Huebner, Jerusalem
1967, (This move de-
prives Black of his castling
rights, because now it is too bad
for him to play: 15 ... 0,bd7 16.
and there is no satisfac-
tory defence against 17.0,b5.)
15 ... 'it>f8 White re-
mains with a great space advan-
tage; moreover Black cannot co-
ordinate easily his pieces, be-
cause of the unfavourable place-
ment of his king.
c) 6 ... 7.0-0
We will analyze now: cl)
7 ... cxd4, c2) 7 ... d6, c3) 7 ... 0,c6,
c4) 7 . 0-0 and c5) 7 . .,d5.
About 7 ... 'c7? 8.e5! - see
5 ... 'lfic7 6.0-0 i.e7 7. 'e2 0,f6
8.e5!
Black has tested in several
games the strange move 7 ... h6?!
White can exploit that obvious
loss of time with the help of the
energetic move: 8.e5!? 0,d5 9.c4
0,c7 (9 ... 0,b4 'lfic7 1l.a3)
10.dxc5 (10 ... bxc5
0,c6 12.0,c3) 1l.0,c3 0-0 (1l ... d5
12.exd6 i.xd6 13.11dl) 12.0,e4
i.e7 and Black's defence
is quite difficult because of his
misplaced knight on c7, his lack
of space and no possibilities for
any active counterplay.
The move 7 ... 'c8 - is con-
nected with the idea to trade the
light squared bishops. 8 . .l:i.e1 d5
(It seems more purposeful for
Black to try: 8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 d5
10.e5 4Je4 1l.4Jbd2 0,xd2 12.
i.xd2 i..a6, but after
61
Chapter 3
t'tb7 14J:!c3! i.xd3 15. t'txd3
White dominates on the only
open file and he enjoys a space
advantage too.) 9.e5 ttJe4 10.
ttJbd2 ttJxd2 H . .txd2 .ta6 12.c4!
dxc4 ii.xc4 14. t'txc4
t'ta6, Gamer - Dobosz, Karlsruhe
2003, and now White maintains
a powerful pressure after 15.
t'tc2!, for example 15 ... ttJd7 (it is
worse for Black to play 15 ... ttJc6
16. l':tc8 17. 16. t'te4!
0-0 (l6 ... 17.i.g5
l:tae8 18.d5! exd5 and
in connection with the great ac-
tivity of White's pieces and the
powerful threat 20.e6, his pros-
pects are clearly superior.
el) 7 ... exd4 8.exd4
8 ... 0-0
8 ... d5 9.e5 - see line e5.
Black has also tried:
8 ... d6 9.ttJc3 a6, Baeuml -
Wunder, Germany 1998. White
should better prepare the pawn-
break e5 and the simplest way
to do that is by playing:
0-0 (10 ... b5 H.e5 ttJd5 12.a4)
H.e5 ttJd5 12. t'te4 g6 13 . .th6;
8 ... ttJc6 9.a3 d6 (9 ... d5 10.e5 -
see variation e5. It is quite dubi-
62
ous for Black to play 9 ... ttJa5?!
10.ttJbd2 :c8 11.b4 ttJc6, 'furna-
Moroff, Schmiden - Weil der
Stadt, Poka11988, because after
12.i.b2 it becomes clear that
Black has lost two tempi. Follow-
ing: 9 .. .1::tc8 10.ttJbd2 0-0
d6 12.b4 :c7 13.i.b2 Black
lacks space and he has no active
play at all, Gruenberg - Strobel,
Germany 1985.) 10.ttJc3 ttJa5,
Sequera - Fraschini, Buenos
Aires 1991. It is of course
favourable for Black to trade
pieces, because his position is
cramped, so White should better
preserve the dark squared bish-
ops: 11.i.g5l:lc8 12J:tad1 0-0 13.
e5 and White maintains supe-
rior attacking chances.
9.ttJe3 d6
In case of 9 ... d5 10.e5 ttJe8,
Pedersen - Gatland, Bergen
2004, it is advisable for White to
follow with the standard re-
source: 11.a3 ttJc7 (U ... a5 12.
i.e3) 12.b4, and Black has
been deprived of any counter-
play.
The passive line 9 ... a6, Zozu-
lia - Matsko, Alushta 1998, en-
ables White to start active ac-
tions in the centre and on the
kingside with: 10.e5 ttJe8 (l0 ...
ttJd5 H. g6 12.i.h6) H.d5!
exd5 12.i.c2.
In answer to 9 ... ttJc6, Sovrat-
nik - Galaxia, Internet 2004, it
is again good for White to pro-
ceed with: 10.e5 ttJe8 (10 ... ttJd5
11.ttJxd5 exd5 12Jlel) H.d5
exd5 12.ttJxd5 and he has the
3.iLd3 e6 4.Ci:,f3 cS S.c3 0,f6 6. iLe7 7.0-0
two bishop advantage and he
dominates in the centre.
10 .l:tdl tDbd7, Wittmann -
Gockner, Oberwart 2000. White
has prepared the pawn-break
in the centre quite well and af-
ter: n.e5 .ixf3 12.gxf3 tDe8
13.f4 he could have obtained a
great advantage. The activity of
White's pieces more than com-
pensates his somewhat weak-
ened kingside.
c2) 7 ... d6 8 . .l:!.dl!
The idea of that move is to
prepare e5 -and the white rook
on the d1-square turns out to be
quite handy in that case.
8 .. :ffic7
8 ... 0,bd7, Pantev - Peev, Teteven
1991. The juxtaposition of the
rook and the queen enables
White to play aggressively: 9.e5!
.ixf3 10. 'ffixf3 dxe5 11.dxe5 0,xe5
12.i.b5+ tDed7 (12 ... tDfd7 13.
13.'ffib7 nc814 . .if4-and
Black has great problems to
avoid the deadly pin.
8 ... Rehm - Schemm,
Nuremberg 1987, 9.e5! tDd5 10.
exd6 .ixd6 l1..ib5! and once
again, just like in the variation
8 ... tDbd7, White's rook on d1 is
placed extremely well and Black
loses his castling rights.
After 8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 0-0 10.
tDc3 0,bd 7, Guido - Aleksic, Porto
San Giorgio 1995, it deserves at-
tention for White to follow with:
1l.e5!? 0,d5 (ll ... .ixf3 12.gxf3
lUe8 13.f4) g6 13 . .ih6t
and White has a dangerous ini-
tiative.
9.e5! tDfd7
In case of 9 ... lUd5 10.a3
Black is forced to play with his
queen once again in order to
manage to save his knight, which
gets ousted to a passive position
as a result.
It is also quite illogical for
Black to open a file on which his
opponent's rook has already been
placed: 9 ... dxe5 10.dxe5 0,fd7
(lO ... tDd5 1l.a3 12.c4 lUc7
13.0,c3) l1.lUa3 a6 12.0,c4.
Black's position is cramped, his
king remains in the centre and
his attempt at castling leads to
a terrible position after: 12 ... 0-0
13.iLg5! For example, Black loses
after: 13 ... .ixg5 (or 13 ... i.xf3 14.
.ixg5 15. 0,c6? 16.
63
Chapter 3
.txh7+-) 14.i.xh7+! 15.
tLlxg5 (15 ...
16.t'te3! (17 ...
lS.tLlh3+-) IS. c;t>g6
c;t>g5 20. f4!+-.
10.tLla3 a6
About 10 ... dxe5 11.dxe5 - see
9 ... dxe5.
1l . .tf4 dxe5
11.. .d5 12.c4.
12.tLlxe5. White has a supe-
rior development and an abun-
dance of space.
c3) 7 ltJc6 8.dxc5!?
8 .. bxc5
It is worse for Black to try:
B ... .txc5 9.e5 ltJd5 10.b4!, be-
cause White has a powerful
queenside initiative due to his
great space advantage. 10 ... .te7
ll.a3 f5 12.c4 ltJc7 13 . .tb2 0-0
64
14.ltJbd2! White redeploys his
knight to the b3-square and it
will support the pawn-offensive
from there. 14 ... t'teB 15 . .:tfd1 g5
16.4Jb3 c;t>hS 17.b5 g4 IS.4Je1
4JdB. Black's pieces do not help
in any way the advance of the
pawns and White's position is
therefore quite safe. 19 . .tc2 .tg5
20.a4 Gligoric - Filipovic, Pod-
gorica 1996.
9.e5ltJd510.c4ltJb6
It is hardly any better for
Black to play: 10 ... ltJdb4 ll . .te4
f5 12.exf6 .txf6 13.a3 ltJa6 14 .
.tf4. Black's pawns in the centre
are a liability and his knight on
a6 has no good prospects in
the nearest future. 14 ... 0-0
15 . .td6 .te7 16 . .txe7 17.
tLlc3ltJc7 lSJ:tadl. White exerts
a powerful pressure along the
central files. 1B ... l:tadB 19. t'te3
ltJeB? (19 ... ltJa5 20 . .txb7 ltJxb7
20.4Jd5+- Slipak - Ro-
driguez, Vicente Lopez 200l.
White has won a pawn and sub-
sequently he pressed easily his
advantage home.
1l.ltJc3
The risky move 11.. .f5?! only
weakens the kingside. The game
Thorhallsson - Poettinger, Liech-
tenstein 1996, ended in a quick
disaster for Black: 12.exf6 gxf6
13.ltJh4 0-0 14. 'it>hS 15.
4Jg6+ hxg6 16 . .txg6 1-0, since
the checkmate is unavoidable.
ll ... d6 compromises Black's
centre as well as his queenside,
12.exd6 .txd6 (13 ...
ltJd4 14.ltJxd4 cxd4 15.liJb5)
3.i.d3 e6 4.CiJ{3 cS S.c3 CiJ{6 6. Y:!!e2 i.e7 7.0-0
14.CiJe4 Fingerov - Shevchenko,
Odessa 200 l.
The pseudo-active move 11 ...
g5?! leads only to the creation of
additional weaknesses after:
12.CiJb5 g4 13.tbg5 a6 14.tbd6+
i..xd6 15.exd6 Y:!!f6 16.tbe4 Thi-
nius - Scherer, Hoeckendorf
2004.
12.tbb5 Y:!!bS lS.i.g5t
Black's d6-pawn is very weak
and White's lead in development
provides him with a long-lasting
advantage.
lS ... CiJcS
Black can hardly solve the
problem with his development
with the move 13 ... f6. After
14.exf6 gxf6 15.i..h4 a6 16.i..g3
e5 17.tbc3 tbd4 18.tbxd4 cxd4
19. Y:!!h5+ wdS 20.tbe4 his cen-
tral pawns are vulnerable, his
king is quite unsafe and his
pieces are rather discoordinated.
14.i..xe7 CiJ6xe7 15.1:.adl a6
16.CiJcS CiJg6
17.i..e4 Filipenko - Fili-
povic, Ljubljana 2000. Black's
pawns on a6, d7 and c5 are very
weak and he has a mountain to
climb before he completes his
development.
c4) 7 ... 0-0 S.e5
S ... CiJeS
Strangely enough, the cen-
tralization of the knight practi-
cally loses outright: S ... lLld5 9.
Y:!!e4 g6 10.i.h6! (White's advan-
tage is not so overwhelming af-
ter the seemingly attractive line:
10.c4lLlb4 11. 12.i.e4
13.i.xc6 14.i..xb7 tbc2;!;
Goerke - Peschel, Solingen 2000)
10 ... neS 1l.tbbd2. Black has
problems to defend against the
oncoming attack and in the
game Palkovi - Bosiocic, Ko-
strena 2001, he was just crushed:
11 ... 12. 13. a3 cxd4
14.cxd4lLlc7 15.h4 d6 16. h5 <t>hS

9.dxc5 bxc5
The move 9 ... i..xc5 enables
White to sacrifice a piece with
in a typical fashion:
1l.tbg5+ 12. f5
14.tbxe6+ Wf7 15.
tbg5+ \t'g6 16. Y:!!h4ct:Jf6 17.exf6.
Mter that forced line, White has
remained with an extra pawn
and excellent attacking chances
against Black's "centralized"
king.
10.lLlbd2 d5
65
Chapter 3
10 ... f5, Wright - Caels, Dubai
1986, because after 11.tbc4 ltJc6
12.i.e3 his pawns on c5, d7 are
weak, the d6-square is vulner-
able and he has no active play at
all. In case he pushes f4 - that
would open the b1-h7 diagonal
for White.
1l.exd6ltJxd6
the game N.Kosintseva - Chi-
stiakova, Elista 2002. White
obtains a slight, but stable ad-
vantage by centralizing his
pieces: 12.l:Idl '!fic7 13.ltJe4
ltJxe4. (Black's attempt at avoid-
ing that exchange leads to a very
difficult position for him: 13 ...
c4 14.i.c2 ltJf5 15.ltJeg5. White
is threatening now 16.ltJxe6,
while the natural responce 15 ...
g6 enables him to activate his
pieces immediately with: 16.
i.xf5 exf5 17.i.f4 18 . .l::rd4.)
14.i.xe4 i.xe4 15. '!fixe 4 '!fic6
16.'!fig4i. Once again White has
a slight, but stable edge, because
he dominates on the d-file and
Black's a7 and c5-pawns are very
weak.
66
c5) 7 ... d5 8.e5
Black has tried in practice
two retreats of the knight in
that position: c5a) 8 ... ltJe4 and
c5b) 8 . ltJfd7.
c5a) 8 .. ltJe4 9.ltJbd2 ltJxd2
10 . .lixd2 a5
Black prevents radically the
move b2-b4, which constrains his
actions on the queenside, but
that does not solve all his prob-
lems.
In case of 10 ... ltJc6, White
should better play 11..l.e3
12.z:tac1 c4 13 . .lic2 a5 14.ltJg5 g6
and he has a powerful
pressure on the kingside, Knors
- De Bruycker, Antwerp 1998.
10 ... '!fic8 11..l.g5! .lia6 (it is
even worse for Black to play:
1l ... .lif8, Giesen - Gazic, Ger-
many 2003, because after 12.c4
dxc4 13 . .l.xc4 he lags in devel-
opment considerably) 12 . .lixe7
i.xd3 13. '!fixd3 Wxe7 14.c4 dxc4
15.'!fixc4 Black
must worry about the safety
of his king, despite the fact
that there is not much material
left on the board, B.Schmidt -
3.j,d3 e6 4.4J{3 cS S.c3 4Jf6 6. t:ie2 j,e7 7.0-0
Schwarzkopf, Wiesbaden 1992.
10 ... cxd4 1l.cxd4 0-0 (it is
hardly better for Black to opt for:
1l ... 4Jc6 12Jlfc1 13.a3 0-0
14.b4 t:id7, Raubal - Froeschl,
Austria 1995, because his pieces
remain passive and White has a
powerful initiative after: 15.
i.c2!? f5 16.exf6 i.xf6 g6
18.b5) 12.b4 a5 13.b5 and
White has managed to squeeze
Black's position completely, Pas-
tor Pons - Mimon, Spain 1993.
White's pawn move b4 is quite
unpleasant for Black after his
other possibilities too:
10 ... 0-0 11.b4 ttJc6 (It is worse
for Black to play: 1l ... cxb4 12.
cxb4 ttJc6 13.a3 t:id7 14 . .l:.ac1 f5
15.exf6 i.xf6, Faybish - De
Bruycker, Antwerp 1999. Mter
16.i.c3, Black is forced into a
long and strenuous defence, due
to his "bad" bishop and the weak-
ness on e6.) 12.bxc5 bxc5 13.dxc5
h6 (White's attack is too danger-
ous after: 13 ... i.xc5 14.i.xh7+
'it>xh7 while in case of
13 ... t:ic7 14. t:ie3 4Ja5 15.ttJd4
i.xc5 16. t:ig3t his kingside ini-
tiative is all too powerful.) 14.
l::tab1 l:tb8 15.4Jd4 ttJa5 (it is
slightly better for Black to play
15 ... "fic7 16.i.c2!) 16. "fig4 'it>h8,
Tischendorf - Damm, Hessen
1997. White wins by force now:
17.i.xh6! gxh6 18. "fih5 i.g5 (18 ...
'it>g7 19.ttJxe6+-) 19.f4+-;
10 ... h6, Parveen - De Jesus
Elista 1998, 1l.b4! ttJc6 (Mter
1l ... c4 White's hands
are free for actions on the king-
side. It is too dubious for Black
to continue with: 11 ... a5 12.bxc5
bxc5 Schelle -
Schramm, Freising 2001. Now
after 14.dxc5 i.xd3 - 14 ...
15Jhb8 - 15. t:ixd3 i.xc5 16.
c4 Black's weaknesses on the
queenside and in the centre are
quite telling and his defence is
even more difficult, because of
his lag in development.) 12.bxc5
bxc5 13.11ab1 14.dxc5 i.xc5
15.4Jd4!t White's initiative is
very powerful, because Black's
king is stranded in the centre.
15 ... ttJxd4 (It is possibly better
for Black to play: 15 ... "fic7 16.
t:ig4, but even then his defence
on the queenside is quite prob-
lematic.) 16.cxd4 i.xd4 17. t:ig4
18.l:tfel "fic7 (18 ... "fid6 19.
"fia4+-) 19Jhe5 "fixe5 20.i.f4
"fid4 21.i.b5+-. White remains at
least with an extra piece.
llJUel i.a6 12.i.b5+!
That move forces Black's
knight to a passive position.
12 ... i.xb5 13."fixb5+ ttJd7
14.c4!
This move opens files in the
centre and that is White's most
energetic method to exploit his
67
Chapter 3
lead in development.
14 ... 16.d5!
Black's pawn-structure on the
queenside is compromised after
this move and White maintains
his advantage in practically ev-
ery possible endgame.
16 .. exd5 .l:Ie8 18.
e6!
White preserves excellent at-
tacking chances, by opening his
opponent's castling position.
18 .. fxe6 19J:txe6 tLJf6 20.
l:Xa7 21.l:tae1 .l:Id7
Itd6
the game Bryson - Miles, Mos-
cow 1994, and the opponents
agreed to a draw, while in fact
after: 23. 'ittc4 Black's defence is
extremely difficult.
c5b) 8 ... tLJfd7
68
9.a3
In comparison to line a (6 ... d5
7.e5 tLJfd7 8.i.g5!), White does
not have now the maneuver i.g5;
nevertheless he has excellent
chances to seize the initiative.
9 .. a5
White was threatening to
deprive his opponent of any
counterplay on the queenside, so
Black prevented that.
9 ... c4 - this is hardly the best
move for Black, because White's
development is clearly superior
and he has an abundance of
space to maneuver. All that in-
dicates - White's initiative on the
kingside should be much more
effective than Black's counter-
play on the queenside, 10.i.c2 b5
1l.tLJe1 h5 12.f4 g6, Gretarsson
- Vidarsson, Iceland 2002, and
now after the simple line: 13.tLJd2
tLJc6 14.tLJdf3! a5 15.tLJg5 White
remains with a stable advantage.
In case of9 ... lL'lc6 10.b4 Black
has tried in practice several dif-
ferent lines, but they lead more
or less to similar positions. White
preserves excellent chances to
exert a powerful pressure on the
kingside:
10 ... a5 1l.b5 lL'la7 12.a4 c4
13.i.c2 'ittc7 14.lL'lg5 Wright -
Partsi, Melbourne 2002;
10 ... tLJf8 lL'lg6, Grujic
- Popchev, Belgrade 1991, 12.
lL'lbd2 c4 13.i.c2 0-0 14.b5 lL'la5
15.g3;t:;
10 ... cxd4 11.cxd4 0-0 12.lL'lc3,
Canfell- Broekhuijse, Canberra
2005, 12 .. J:Ic8 13.i.d2;
3 . .i.d3 e6 4.{[jf3 cS S.c3 {[jf6 6. 'ifte2 .i.e7 7.0-0
10 ... 0-0 'iftc7 12.{[jbd2
l1ae8, Schulz Knappe - Hauck,
Mehlingen 1992, 13. 'ifte3;
10 ... h6, Lehtivaara - Py-
haelae, Raahe 1987, 11.b5 {[ja5
12.{[jbd2 c4 13.i.c2 a6 14.a4;
10 ... g5, Borgo - Miezis, Saint
Vincent 2003, 11.b5 {[ja5 12.
{[jbd2 c4 13.i.c2 a6 14.a4 g4 15.
{[je1 h5 16.f3;
10 ... a6, Lanau - Antonano
Fernandez, Zaragoza 2002, 11.
'ifte3 'iftc7 12.h4 t;
10 ... c4 1l.i.c2 h6 (ll...{[jfB
12.{[je1 a5 13.b5 {[jbB 14.a4
Madl- Kincs, Hungary; 11 ...
12.i.g5 a6 13.{[jbd2 h6 14.i.xe7
{[jxe7 15.h4 0-0-0 16.h5 Rocher
- Scherer, Neumuehl2003) 12.a4
'iftc7 13.h4 0-0-0 14.h5 J:tdg8
15.{[ja3 {[jf8 16 . .if4 Belov -
Rozanov, St. Petersburg 2004.
10.c4!
It seems quite logical for
White to open files in the centre,
because he leads in development;
moreover Black has weakened
his queenside with his previous
move.
10 ... 0-0
It is possibly better for Black
to play here: 10 ... dxc4!? 11 . .txc4
{[jc6 12.dxc5 bxc5! 13 . .l::!.d1
Konikowski - Gawehns, Internet
2000. It looks very strong now for
White to continue with 14 . .tb5!,
depriving Black of any tactical
chances connected with the move
g5, for example 14 ... 0-0 15 . .tf4
1:tfd8 16.{[jc3;!; - and White enjoys
a space advantage and a better
pawn-structure.
1l.cxd5 i.xd5 12.{[jc3 .tb7
the game Stoll- Aschenbrenner,
Austria 2001, and White had ex-
tra space, so his task was to cen-
tralize his pieces as quickly as
possible. 13.l%dl! cxd4 (The
move 13 ... {[ja6 would have been
countered with the dangerous
pawn-break 14.d5! exd5 15.e6!
{[jf6 and Black can
hardly avoid material losses.)
14.{[jxd4 {[jc5 15 . .tc2 {[jbd7 (M-
ter 15 ... 16.{[jcb5 'iftc8 17.
l:td8 1B . .th6 White has a
great lead in development and a
powerful pressure all over the
board.) g6 (or 16 ... h6
17 . .txh6 gxh6 18.'iftxh6+-) 17.
18.f4 .l::i.fd8 19 . .te3
.!:Lac8 20. 21.l1d2.
Black's squares b5 and d6 are
quite vulnerable and he has
no active counterplay, so his po-
sition is very unpleasant to de-
fend.
69
Chapter 3
Conclusion
The Owen's Defence leads to an interesting and complicated
struggle in positions that are not so well analyzed and tested in prac-
tice. Still, Black practically surrenders the centre to his opponent
and falls behind in development, so it becomes quite difficult for
him to fight for equality. In the great majority of variations, it is
quite enough for White, in order to obtain a huge advantage, to de-
ploy his pieces according to the following scheme - i..d3, 'fffe2, 0-0
and r:..dl.
Should Black try to transpose to a pawn-structure typical for the
French Defence - his light squared bishop becomes really "bad". The
attempts to trade it usually lead to a loss of plenty of time and White
gains total control over the centre as a result. In case Black tries to
deploy his pawns in a hedgehog-formation - a6, b6, d6, e6 etc.- his
position becomes too passive and he has no real chances for any
counterplay. It is more interesting for Black to try to fight for the
centre with the help of the pawn-move e5, but then his bishop on b7
becomes terribly misplaced.
70
Part 2
Nimzowitsch Defence
l.e4 4jc6 2.4jf3
In this part ofthe book we are
dealing with Black's peculiar
opening experiment - the move
1...ct:Jc6 (Nimzowitsch Defence).
This seldom played move has not
been analyzed extensively yet.
Its main idea is to avoid the
popular theory; nevertheless the
game often transfers to some
other well-known openings. In
fact, Black often suffers from
these transpositions, because of
the premature placement of the
knight to the c6-square. It usu-
ally comes under the pin - iLfl-
b5, or under an early pawn-at-
tack d4-d5 and Black loses tempi
in the process.
After 2.ct:Jf3, Black sometimes
chooses 2 ... ct:Jf6, or 2 ... f5 (Chap-
ter 4). In case Black plays 2 ... d5,
(Chapter 5), then after 3.exd5,
it turns out that he has entered
a not so favourable variation
of the Scandinavian Defence.
Similarly after 2 ... g6 3.d4 (Chap-
ter 6), there arises a line of the
King's Indian Defence, which is
not advantageous for Black ei-
ther. White can play d4-d5 at an
opportune moment and he gains
one or two tempi by attacking the
knight, so he seizes a long-last-
ing initiative.
We have devoted our Chapter
7 to Black's most principled
variation 2 ... d6.
71
Chapter 4 l.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3
We are going to analyse in
this chapter: a) 2 .. 4:lf6 and b)
2 .. f5.
About 2 ... e5 - see the volume
dealing with 1...e5.
2 ... e6 3.d4 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4
4:lc63.4:lf3.
a) 2 ... 4:lf6 3.e5 4:lg4
3 ... 4:ld5 transposes, after 4.d4
d6, to the Alekhine Defence.
It is too bad for Black to play:
3 ... 4:le4, because of 4.d3 4:lc5 5.d4
4:le4 6.d5, and White obtained a
huge space advantage, while
Black's knights were circling
around the board.
3 ... 4:lh5 does not seem logical.
After the natural line: 4.d4 d5
5.c4, Black can hardly defend his
position in the centre without
losing material. It is a disaster
72
for him to play: 5 ... e6? 6.g4+-, as
well as 5 ... .lte6 6.4:lg5, therefore
he has nothing better than: 5 .. .
.ltg4 6.cd 7.4:lc3 (or 7 .. .
.ltf3 8.4:ld5 .ltd1 9.4:lc7 10.
4:la8 .ltg4 11..lte3, and White is
threatening d5 and h3 and he
has a winning position) 8.h3,
and Black's position is very dif-
ficult. He has no coordination of
forces at all.
It is also not attractive for
Black to play: 3 ... 4:lg8, because
that knight-manoeuvre has
wasted two tempi and White ob-
tains a great advantage by play-
ing simply: 4.d4 d6 (4 ... e6 5 . .ltd3
d5 6.c3 g6 7.i.g5 i.e7 8 . .ltxe7
4:lcxe7 a6 h5 11.
4:lbd2 4:lfS 12.0-0-0 .ltd7 13.h3
14.g4 4:lg7 15.4:lg5 Kluger
- Korody, Tatatovaros 1935) 5.
4:lc3 g6 (5 ... f6? 6 . .ltf4 4:lh6 7 . .ltxh6
gxh6 8.e6 d5 9.4:lg5+-; 8 ... i.g7
9.d5 4:lb8 10.4:ld4 0-0 11.4:lfS+-)
6.exd6 cxd6 7.d5 4:le5 8.4:ld4 .ltg7
9 . .ltb5+ .ltd7 10.f4 4:lg4 11.i.xd7 +
12.h3 4:l4h6 13.g4 To-
mescu - Pizzuto, Spain 1999.
It is not any better for Black
to play: 4 ... d5 5.c3 i.fS (5 ... .ltg4
6.h3 iLf3 and White has
the bishop-pair) 6.tLJh4 .txb1
(6 ... .ie4 7.e6 fxe6 B.tLJd2, and
White has an excellent compen-
sation for the sacrificed pawn;
6 ... .ie6 7.i.d3 B.f4 .ig4
9. e6 10.h3 .ih5 11.g4 .ig6
12.f5) 7Jhb1 e6
9 . .id3 0-0-0 1O.M'ittbB 11.0-0 ill
12.f4, and White organized
shortly a powerful kingside at-
tack in the game Mueller - Fend,
Hessen 1999.
4.d4 d6
After 4 ... e6 5.c3, the game re-
sembles the French Defence ex-
cept for Black's bad knight on g4.
White has a stable advantage
and a huge lead in development.
4 ... d5 5.h3 tLJh6 6.i.xh6 gxh6
7.c3 .if5 B . .td3 .ixd3
10.tLJbd2 e6 11.tLJfl i.e7
12.tLJg3 0-0-0 13.tLJh5
14.g4 J:tg6 15.0-0-0 Arino Lison
- Palomar, Zaragoza 2004. White
can easily exploit Black's weak-
nesses on the kingside.
After 4 ... g6 5.h3 tLJh6 6. d5
tLJbB 7 . .tf4, White's edge is obvi-
ous, moreover Black has only one
developed piece and that is his
knight on the h6-square ...
5.h3 tLJh6 6.tLJc3
1. e4 tLJc6 2. tLJf3
N ow, no matter what Black
plays - he is faced with great
difficulties, for example:
6 ... dxe5 7.d5 tLJbB B.tLJxe5 tLJf5
9. g6 10.tLJxf7 'ittxf7 1l.g4 .ig7
12.gxf5 .ixf5 13.i.d3 14.
tLJe4 'it>eB 15 . .ig5 tLJa6 16.0-0-0
tLJM 17.':he1 tLJxd3+ 1B.':xd3.lIfE
19.tLJc5 .txd3 21.
Romero Holmes - Nar-
ciso Dublan, Terrassa 1994;
6 ... a6 7.exd6 B.d5 tLJe5
9.g3 tLJf5 10 . .tg2 tLJxf3+ 11.
e5 12.0-0 .ie7 13.tLJe4 14.b3
0-0 15 . .ih2 f6 16J:tadl
1B.c4 tLJd6 19.tLJc5
.lIbB 21.f4 Kolev -
Bosch, Spain 1995;
6 ... e6 7 . .tb5 tLJf5 B. a6
9.i.xc6+ bxc6 10.iLg5 .te7 11.
i.xe7 12.0-0 0-0 13.tLJa4
.lib7 14J:tfe1 tLJh4 15.b3 .lIad8 16.
dxe51B.dxe5
''g5 20.tLJc5
21.tLJd3 ''g5 22.h4 Romero Hol-
mes - Ramirez, Spain 1993.
b) 2 ... f5?!
Black is trying to occupy the
centre just like in the Latvian
Gambit. White can easily obtain
the advantage. His main idea is
73
Chapter 4
to exploit the dark-squares and
particularly the e5-outpost.
3.exf5 d5
In case of 3 ... d6, White's sim-
plest line to get the advantage is
with the natural move 4.d4, and
the game might continue with for
example: 4 ... i.xf5 5.d5ltJb4 (it is
5 ... ltJe5, Veingold - Kiltti, Hel-
sinki 1997, 6.ltJxe5 dxe5
6.ltJd4 Aldrete - Dunne,
corr. 1989, 7.i.c4 ltJf6 8.ltJc3 c5
9.dxc6 bxc6 10.a3 ltJd5 1l.ltJxd5
ltJxd5 12.0-0, and White has a
huge lead in development and
good attacking chances.
It seems better for Black to
play: 3 ... ltJf6, but White still ob-
tains a huge advantage after:
4.d4 d5 5.i.d3 ltJe4, J.Martinez
- Costantini, Email 2001 (oth-
erwise White simply remains
with an extra pawn) 6.ltJe5! i.xf5
7.ltJxc6 bxc6 8.ltJd2, and Black's
central pawns are immobile and
therefore his defence is very dif-
ficult.
ii.xf5
Black has tried in several
games, and quite successfully at
that, the move 4 ... a6, but after
the simple: 5 . ..txc6 bxc6, Wallace
- V.Smirnov, Doeberl 2000, 6.
ltJd4, White preserves a solid ex-
tra pawn. After, for example:
6 ... 'it>d8.8.d3, Black's
king remains in the centre and
White's lead in development en-
ables him to start soon a success-
ful kingside attack.
It is just terrible for Black to
74
play: 4 ... d4, because after the
natural move: 5.ltJe5, he cannot
defend against the threats
and for example: 5 ... 6.
g6 7.fxg6ltJf6 8.g7+ ltJxh5
Snarheim - Carl-
strom, Hallsberg 1998.
The other possibility for Black
leads to a transposition: 4 ...
5.d4 i.xf5 6.ltJe5 (see the main
line).
5.ltJe5
5 ...
5 ... a6 (This is a definite loss
oftime, because White was plan-
ning to exchange on c6 anyway.)
6.i.xc6+ bxc6 7.0-0 e6 (7 ...
8.d4ltJf6 9.c4 ltJd7 ltJxe5
1l.ii.xe5
'itd8 15.ltJf3) 8.d3
i.d6 g6
1l.ltJd2ltJf6 12.ltJdf3 13.Z':!.e1
0-0 (13 ... ltJg4 14.h3 ltJxe5 15.
ltJxe5 16.Z':!.xe2 17.
llxe5 h5 18.i.e3 - Black is faced
with a difficult fight to save the
draw, despite the simplifications.
He has plenty of weaknesses on
both sides of the board and his
bishop is much weaker than
White's bishop.) 14.h3 c5, Lau -
Gross, Germany 1997, and here
after threatening g4
(immediately, or preceded by
Black has grave problems
to save his light-squared bishop.
5 ... bxc6 (It is not
any better for Black to play:
6 ... 7.0-0 ctJf6 g6 9.
d4 10.ctJc3 a6 ctJh5
h6 13.i.h4
Itg7 ctJf6 16.i..xf6
17.ctJxd5+- Pirrot - Gross, Ger-
many 1991.) 7.0-0 ctJf6 8.d4 e6
9.c4 dxc4 10.lZ'lc3 i.d6 1l.i.g5
0-0 12. and Black will
hardly be able to defend his pawn
weaknesses, Schmaltz - Gross,
St. Ingbert 1994.
6.d4lZ'lf6
After 6 ... e6, Hadjieff - Rittler,
Austria 1995, White wins with:
g6 and it is im-
possible for Black to defend
against the threat g4, without
material losses.
6 ... 7.i..xc6 (It is also
good for White to play: 7.lZ'lxd7
8.0-0 0-0-0 9.:el a6
10.i.a4 e6 l1.c3 i.d6 12.b4, and
White maintains the two-bishop
advantage and good attacking
chances.) 7 ... bxc6 (White has a
stable edge after: 7 ... i.xc6 8.lZ'lc3
0-0-0 9. i.e8 10.i.f4, be-
cause ofthe powerful e5-outpost
and the attacking prospects on
the queenside.) 8.0-0 lZ'lf6 (It is
worse for Black to play: 8 ...
9.c4 e6, Alexopoulos - Ryan,
Washington 1994, 10.:el i.d6
1l.c5+-, and Black is practically
stalemated.) 9.b3 10.ctJc3
1l.ctJa4 ctJe4 12.lZ'lxd7 'itxd7
l.e4 ctJc6 2. ctJ[3
13.f.3 ctJf6 14.ctJc5+ 15.lIel,
and White is easily winning,
Yemelin - Kiik, Jyvaskyla 1999.
6 ... a6 7 . ..txc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 ctJf6
(8 ... g6 9 . ..tf4 i.h6 10.i.xh6 ctJxh6
1l.c4 0-0 12.lZ'lc3 lZ'lf7 13 . .l:iel
lIab814.c5 9 ... i.g7,
Holmsten - Kiltti, Tampere
1998, and here White's simplest
line was threatening
ctJf7.) 9.c3 (It is more aggressive
for White to follow with: 9.c4 ctJd7
10.i.f4.) 9 ... ctJd7 10.i.f4 ctJxe5
1l.i.xe5 12.lZ'ld2 e6 13.b4
i.d6 0-0 15.ctJb3 16.
f.3
19.<t>h1 i.c2 20.lZ'la5 i.a4 21.lZ'lb7
i.xe5 22.dxe5 llb8 23.lZ'lc5 Mi-
siano - Schmid, Biel 2002.
7.0-0 lZ'ld7
About 7 ... a6 8.i..xc6 bxc6 - see
6 ... a6 7.i.xc6 bxc6 8.0-0 lZ'lf6.
8.i.xc6 bxc6 9.i.f4 lZ'lxe5
9 ... - this move does not
change much concerning the
type of position as well as the
character ofthe fight. 10.b3 ctJxe5
Bericat - Anda, Email
2001.
After 9 ... c5 10.lZ'lc3 c6 lLl:i.el
lLlxe5 12.i.xe5 13.dxc5 i.xc2
e6 White had a
75
Chapter 4
decisive advantage in the game:
Jonkman - Lutton, Port Erin
2004.
10 . .1Lxe5
It is not better for Black to
play: 10 .. ll.c3 .1Lc2 (1l .. Jtb8
12.b3 l:.b7 13.ltel e6 14J:te3)
lib8 (12 . .. .1Le4
14 . .1Lxg3 'it>d8 15.'Lld2 .1Ld3
16.l::tfel Wadsack - Hainzinger,
Austria 1996) 13.b4 .1Le4
15 . .1Lxg3 %:tb7 16.'Lld2 .1Lc2
17.'Llb3 Burchfield - Manarin,
corr.200l.
(diagram)
White has plenty of moves to
prove his advantage, but we will
recommend to you the most prin-
cipled line: 1l.'Lld2 with the
idea of occupation of the dark-
squares. 1l .. e6 12.'Llb3 .1Ld6
13.lte1 0-0 %:tab8 15.
%:te3 "fftf7 16J:tae1 a5 (After 16 ...
.1Le4 17.f3 .1Lxe5 18.dxe5 .1Lf5 19.
.1Lxc2 20.'Llc5 l:tb5
White has an excellent compen-
sation for the pawn - he has a
powerful knight on c5 and active
play on the dark squares.) 17.c3
l:!.b5 18.'Llc5 .1Lxc5 19.dxc5l:txc5
20J:!g3 g6 21..1Ld4, and White is
dominant on the dark squares,
Pavasovic - Daus, Deizisau 2004.
Conclusion
The variations, which we have analyzed in this chapter, are very
seldom played in practice. This is because Black makes consider-
able positional compromises at a very early stage of the game. He
falls behind in development and surrenders the centre in line a, so
he often even fails to survive until move twenty. His complex of dark
squares is weakened irrevocably in line b and White can exploit that
with accurate play and occupy them quite effectively.
76
Chapter 5 l.e4 tDc6 2.tDf3 d5
We have now a line from the
Scandinavian Defence, but quite
unfavourable for Black. His
knight on c6 is misplaced and
White easily obtains a great ad-
vantage:
3.exd5 '{;fxd5 4.CZJc3 '{;fa5
4 ... '{;fe6 5.i.e2 ~ g 6 6.CZJb5 ~ d 8
7.d4, and White has much bet-
ter development, while Black's
king is stranded in the centre.
The other possibilities are not
promising for Black either, for
example: 4 ... '{;fd7 5.d4 e6 6.i.b5
i.d6 7.CZJe4, or 4 ... c 5 5.d4, and
White has a huge lead in devel-
opment.
It is more stubborn for Black
to play: 4 ... '{;ff5, with the idea to
counter the natural move 5.d4
with 5 ... CZJb4, but even then af-
ter: 6.i.b5+ c6 (It is worse for
Black to play: 6 ... i.d7 7.i.d7 'iit>d7
8.0-0; 7 ... '{;fd7 8.0-0, and White
has a clear advantage.) 7.i.a4
CZJd5 8.0-0 CZJxc3 9.bxc3 e6 10.c4
CZJf6 1l.CZJe5;t, and White's posi-
tion is clearly better, because of
his more harmonious develop-
ment and his dominance in the
centre, but naturally Black was
not forced to lose immediately -
1L.i.d6?? 12.g41-0 D.Fernando
- Berges, Cappelle la Grande
200l.
4 '{;fd8 5.d4 CZJf6 (The other
moves for Black are worse: 5 ... e5,
5 ... i.g4, 5 ... i.f5, or 5 ... g6, because
after each one of them White
plays 6.d5 occupying space and
gaining a huge lead in develop-
ment. Meanwhile, after 5 ... e6,
the game transposes to the Ru-
binstein variation (l.e4 e6 2.d4
d5 3.CZJc3 dxe4 4.CZJxe4) of the
French Defence, in which White
has two extra tempi in addition
to the rest of his positional
pluses.) 6.i.b5 e6 (It is bad for
Black to play 6 ... i.f5? 7.d5 a6,
Kasianczuk - Dudel, Kolobrzeg
2001, because after 8.i.a4 b5
77
Chapter 5
9.ttJxb5 axb5 10.i.xb5 ..td7 11.
dxc6, his queenside pawns are
about to disappear altogether. It
is hardly better for him to try:
6 ... ..td7 7.0-0 a6, Huddleston -
Hickman, Churchill 2000, be-
cause now: 8 . ..txc6 ..txc6 9.ttJe5,
leads to an overwhelming advan-
tage for White in development,
for example: 9 ... ..td5 10.ttJxd5
11.c4, or 9 ... 10 . ..tf4,
or 9 ... ..td7 10 . .i:.e1 ..tf5 11.fif3
fic8 12 . ..tg5 .ixc2? 13.ttJd5+-;
10 ... .ie6 11..ig5 12.
0-0-0 13.l:tadl. Again, it is not
so good for Black to continue
with: 6 ... a6 7 . .ixc6+ bxc6 8.0-0
e6, Jimenez - V.Gonzalez, Cuba
1976, after 9.ttJe5 .ib7 10 . .ie3
11. .id6 12.ttJa4 Black's
queenside pawns are too weak,
just as well the c5-square and his
two bishops are not a sufficient
compensation.) 7.0-0 ..td7 (It is
7 ... .ie7 8.ttJe5 .id7, McNamara
- Jackson, Detroit 1994, 9 . ..txc6
bxc6 10.ttJa4; 9 ... .ixc6 10.ttJxc6
bxc6 11. Black's weaknesses
on the queenside are consider-
able and he will have to survive
a long and difficult defence with-
out any counterplay. It is not logi-
cal for him to play: 7 ... ..tb4,
Barnsley - Braakhuis, Email
2001, 8.ttJe5 .id7 9 . .ixc6 bxc6
10. 0-0 11..ig5; 9 ... ..txc6
1O.ttJxc6 bxc6 12.a3
..te7 13 . .if4 lLld5 14 . .ie5; 12 ...
.ixc3 13. 0-0 14.b3) 8 . .ig5
lLle7 9 . .ixd7+ ttJxd7 10.l!e1 h6
11..ih4 g5 12 . .ig3 ttJg6?! (It is
78
more stubborn for Black to de-
fend with 12 ... .ig7, but even then
his defence is quite problematic:
13.ttJb5 ttJd5 14.c4) 13.d5! fif6
14.dxe6 fxe6 15.ttJd5 1-0 Kawa-
ciukova - Fonseca, Cappelle la
Grande 1995.
4 .. 5.d4leads to a line of
the Scandinavian Defence with
a queen on d6. Black now has
problems to parry the threat
6.d5, because his knight has been
developed to c6 a bit too early, for
example he loses after: 5 ... e6?
6.ttJb5 7 . .if4. Therefore it is
better for Black to play: 5 ... lLlf6
(Or 5 ... .ig4 6.lLlb5 7 . .if4 l:tc8
8 . .ie2 a6 9.lLlc3 e6 10.0-0 lLlf6
11.h3 .ixf3 12 . .ixf3t and White's
bishop pair and his lead in de-
velopment guarantee that his
advantage will soon become
decisive, Temprano - Ricard,
Sant Boi 2000. It is a disaster
for Black to play: 6 ... 7.lLle5!
ttJxe5 8.ttJxc7+ 'it'd7 9.ttJxe6 .ixd1
10. ttJxf8+ l:txfS 11. 'it'xd 1 +-, or
7 ... 8.dxe5 .ixdl 9.lLlxc7+
'it'd7 10.ttJxa8 .ixc2 11..ib5 e6 12.
.ie3 .ib4+ 13.'it'e2lLlge7, Bezo-
Hlinka, Slovakia 2003, 14J:thc1
.if5 15.a3 .ia5 16.b4+-) 6. ttJb5
(6 ... Brookshire -Cun-
ningham, Email 2002 and here
White could have achieved a
great advantage with: 7.lLle5!
lLlxe5 8.dxe5 - it is even
worse for Black to play 8 ... lLlg4
9 . .if4+- - 9.'it'xd1 ttJg4 1O.lLlxc7+
'it'd8 1l.ttJxa8 ttJxf2+ 12.'it'e1
lLlxh1 13 . .ie3+-, because White
will easily evacuate his knight
l.e4 CDc6 2.CD{3 dS 3.ed "fldS 4.CDc3 "flaS S . .JI..bS
away from the corner, while the
same task for Black seems im-
possible. Obviously it is better for
Black to try: 7 ... "fldB ttJd5
9 . .lii.c4!, but White's lead in de-
velopment is overwhelming.)
7.d5 ttJb4 B.c4
And now:
in answer to B ... e6, Filev -
Karakehajov, Sofia 2004, White's
simplest line is: 9 . .lii.f4! ttJa6 10.
d6 c6! (after 10 ... cxd6 1l.ttJxd6+
.lii.xd6 12. "flxd6 13 . .lii.xd6
ttJe4 White's couple of
powerful bishops and his pawn-
majority on the queenside pro-
vide him with a stable advan-
tage) 1l.ttJc3! ttJh5 f6 13.
ttJd2! g6 14.g4 fxe5 15.gxh5
16. Black lags in develop-
ment and his king is quite vul-
nerable, his pawns are weak and
his pieces are rather discoordi-
nated. All these factors are much
more important than Black's ex-
tra pawn;
The attempt to seize the ini-
tiative by a pawn-sacrifice with:
B ... e5 9.11Jxe5 a6, L.Nemeth -
Sherwood, Email 2003, can be
parried by White with the simple
line: 10. "fle2! (10 ... ttJc2+
axb5 12."flb3! bxc4 13.
"flb5+ llJd7 11.ttJd4 c5
12.ttJc2 and Black has no com-
pensation for the pawn whatso-
ever;
B ... c6! 9.dxc6 "fla5?! (It was
practically forced for Black to
enter an inferior endgame with:
9 ... bxc6! 10. "flxdS+ 'iitxdB 11.
llJa3
(Black's only playable possibility
here was: 10 ... bxc6 11.a3 cxb5
12.axb4 13.c5)
"flxb4+ 12.ttJd2 llbS (after 12 ...
'iitdS 13.cxb7 14.a3 the
game goes into an endgame, in
which White remains with a
solid extra pawn) 13.ttJc7+
14.11Jd5 1-0 Bojkov - Panbuk-
chian, Pleven 2005.
After 4 ... 5.ttJb5
6.d4, White is threatening
7 . .lii.f4, moreover Black's king is
stuck in the centre and that pro-
vides White with a stable advan-
tage. Black's most logical move
now is 6 ... ttJf6, Parma - B.Lar-
sen, Zagreb 1965 (He cannot pre-
vent the accomplishment of
White's plans with: 6 ...
S."flxf3 "flxf3 9.gxf3
a6 10.11Jxc7 I:tcB 11.CDd5 CDxd4 12.
0-0-0+-; 1l ... 12.0-0-0+-,
because White remains with an
extra pawn in the endgame and
a better development, Wittmann
- Moser, Wuerttemberg 2000. It
is too dubious for Black to try:
6 ... a6?! 7.ttJc3 "flg6,
Mecking - Fernandez, Las Pal-
mas 1975, because after: 9.ttJh4
"flf6 10.CDxf5 "flxf5 "flg6
79
Chapter 5
12 . ..I1i.f3 White has two powerful
bishops and Black has great
problems to secure the safety of
his king, which has been de-
prived of the right to castle). It
seems now quite interesting for
White to try the move 7.d5!?,
which has never been tested in
practice yet.
See some lines:
7 .. e5
lOJ:txd1+ (after 10 ... 1l.
ttJxe5 ttJxe5 White ex-
erts a powerful pressure along
the central files) 1l.ttJxd6 cxd6
12 . .l:i.xd6+ r:j;c7 (12 ... ii.d7 13.
ii.e3) 13.:xc6+! bxc6 14.ttJxe5
ttJh5 (in case of 14 .. .l:1eS 15 . .txf7
.l:!.e7 16.0-0ii:i. White's compensa-
tion for the exchange is more
than sufficient - he has two
pawns and a couple of powerful
bishops, moreover his piece-co-
ordination is excellent.) 15.
ttJxf7+ ttJxf4 16.ttJxhS .l:.bS 17.b3
ttJxg2+ lS.'it'd2 ttJh4 19.ttJf7 and
Black can hardly prove that his
sufficient;
7 ... ttJe5 ttJxf3+
10.gxf3 i.d7
ttJxd5 13.0-0-0 e6 (the
so
other possibilities for Black are
even worse: 13 ... a6?! 14.l:Ixd5
axb5 15 . .txb5 .tc6 16 . .txc6 bxc6
17.l:1c5 lS.l:i.d1! and White
remains with an extra pawn in
the endgame; 13 ... f6 14Jhd5
fxe5 15J:1c5+ r:j;dS 16 . .th3! and
Black would probably fail to neu-
tralize the great activity of
White's pieces without losing
material) 14.l:i.g1 f6 15.ttJd6+
g5 17.c4 Black's
defence will be extremely diffi-
cult, because of his weak king-
side pawns and his considerable
lag in development.
5.ii.b5
5 ... ii.d7
5 ... 6.h3 (In case
of 6 ... 7.0-0, there arises a
position from the main line, ex-
cept that White's pawn is on the
h3-square. This is either imma-
terial, or it might even be in
favour of White.) 7.g4 S.ttJe5
(Black has also tried in prac-
tice the move S ... O-O-O, Garside
- Stewart, corr. 19S7, but after
9.ttJxc6 bxc6 1l.
<it>f1 he has no compensation for
the pawn.) 9.f3 a6 10.ttJc4
1l.a3 12.d4 13.fxe4
l.e4lbc6 2.lbf3 dS 3.ed 'il1dS 4.ti'Jc3 'il1aS S.!ibS
axb5 14.tL'lxb5 'il1b8 15.i..f4+-
Bednarski - Allegro, Sion 1990).
5 ... lbf6 - this is a logical de-
veloping move, but Black ignores
White's threats just in vain:
6.lbe5! i..d7 7.lbxd7 lbxd7 8.0-0
e6 9.i..xc6 bxc6 10. 'il1f3 and
Black has no compensation for
his horribly compromised queen-
side pawn-structure, Biyiasas-
Yearwood, Canada 1981.
5 ... a6 6.i..xc6+ bxc6 7.'il1e2,
and later in the game Karpov -
Hort, Oslo, 1984, there followed:
7 ... lbf6 (or 7 ... e6 8.0-0 i..d6 9.d4
lbe7 1O.lbe4 0-0 1l.c4 and the
position remains very difficult
for Black, because of the weak-
nesses of his queenside, Akopian
- Kalantarian, Caucasus 1988)
8.lbe5 e6 (8 ... i.b7 9.d4 e6 10.0-0
'il1b4 1l.z:td1 a5 12.a3 'il1d6 13.
i..f4 Lopez del Alamo - Rodri-
guez Izquierdo, Madrid 2002;
10 ... i..d6, Boino - Fontes, Lisbon
1999, now it is correct for White
to continue with: 1l.a3! 0-0 12.
l:dl and Black's queen is terri-
bly misplaced, so that he is de-
prived of the only reasonable
counterplay, connected with
the preparation of the pawn-
break c6-c5 -12 ... c5? 13.lbc4+-.
This is the point behind the move
1l.a3. Later, White will prepare
b2-b4 and he fill fix Black's weak-
nesses.) 8.lbe5 e6 9.0-0 iLd6
10.d4 0-0 c5 12.lbc4 'il1b4
13.a3 'il1b8, and here instead of
14.iLg5, White had better play:
14.dxc5 iLxc5 15.iLg5 iLe7 16.
lbe4.
6.0-0
Black has tried in practice the
following moves in this position:
a) 6 lbf6, b) 6 ... e6, c) 6 ... a6 and
d) 6 ... 0-0-0.
a) 6 . lbf6 7.d4 0-0-0
Black loses too much time
with the move 7 ... lbe4, Bokros-
Ganguly, Szeged 1994, 8. 'il1d3!
lbxc3 9.bxc3 e6 (in case of 9 ... a6
10.iLxc6 iLxc6 1l.c4 0-0-0 12.
lbe5 iLe8 13.iLd2 'il1b6 14.i..e3
White has a lead in development,
he has occupied the centre and
he can operate effectively along
the open b-file, so he has excel-
lent attacking prospects.) 10.c4
a6 (It is not any better for Black
to play 10 ... 0-0-0 1l.lbg5! i..e8
12.i..xc6 bxc6 1l.i..xc6
iLxc6 12.lbe5.
White would have a great ad-
vantage after: 7 ... a6 8.iLxc6 iLxc6
9.lbe5 e6 (9 ... 'il1b6 10.d5 :d8
11.iLe3 'il1xb2 12.iLd4 iLb5
'il1a3 14. 'il1f3 e6 15.lbxf7 'it>xf7
16.dxe6+ 17.iLxf6 gxf6 18.
'il1g4+ iLg7 19.e7+- Gdanski -
Pyda, Warsaw 1990) 10.lbxc6
bxc6 11. 'il1f3 'il1b6 (It is not so good
for Black to play: 1l ... lbd5?!. M-
81
Chapter 5
ter 12.lLle4! Black's position be-
comes extremely difficult - his
weaknesses have been fixed and
White's pawn-centre is ready to
advance.) 12.b3 i..e7 13.lLla4
14.c4 0-0 15.i..g5 :adS 16 . .i::!.adl
.l::i.feS 17 . .l:td3 lLld7 IS.i..xe7 l:Ixe7
l:IdeS 20.f4 Kholmov -
Tibensky, Pardubice 1995.
8.i..e3
8 ... lLld5
S ... a6 9.i..xc6 i..xc6 10.lLle5
i..eS 11. e6 12.a3 lLld5??
13.lLlc4 1-0 Nikolaidis - Tsio-
tridis, Kavala 1991.
It is dubious for Black to con-
tinue with: S ... e6?!, Ferron Gar-
cia - Arbunic Castro, Alicante
2000, because now White can
proceed with the standard opera-
tion: 9.lLlg5! i..eS 10.i..xc6 bxc6
11. compromising Black's
pawn-structure on the queen-
side.
In answer to S ... lLle4, Szuk-
Zaninotto, Budapest 1991, it is
advisable for White to follow
with 9.a4!, after which the logi-
cal line: 9 ... ctJxc3 10.bxc3, trans-
poses to the variation: S ... ctJd5
9.a4 ctJxc3 10.bxc3.
9.a4 ctJxe3
82
It is too dangerous for Black
to open the b-file, because he
might come under a dangerous
attack, as it happened in the fol-
lowing short and crushing game:
9 ... lLlxc3 10.bxc3 e6 1l.c4 a6 12.c5
axb5 13.axb5 14.1:ta8+ ctJb8
i..c6 17.
ctJe5+ 18Jhb8 i..e7 19.c4
20.ctJxc6 21.lhb7+-
Magem Badals - Summerscale,
France 1999.
10.fxe3 f6 11.ttJd2 e6
I t is hardly any better for
Black to play: 11 .. 12.ctJa2
Priour - Nava, Internet
2001, because after: 13.ttJe4!
14. 15.ttJc5 White has a
excellent attacking chances.
12.lLla2 ctJe5
13.b4!
a game between the same oppo-
nents as early as in the year
1959! White played and
later he lost the game. Now, he
is demonstrating an improve-
ment and that is a good example
of a meticulous home prepara-
tion. 13 ... (Naturally, it is
too bad for Black to continue
1.e4lbc6 2.lbf3 d5 3.ed 'if:1d5 4.lbc3 'if:1a55 . .tb5
with: 13 ... .ixb4??, because of
14.lbb3 and White wins a piece,
but now White's pawn-offensive
on the queenside can hardly be
countered by Black with any-
thing worthwhile.) 14.c4 c6
15.c5
Mednis - Seidman, New York
1961. Black has the two bishop
advantage, but that is the only
thing he can brag about in this
position. White's space advan-
tage on the queenside provides
him with excellent attacking
chances.
b) 6 ... e6 7.d4
7 ...
play: 7 ... lbf6?! 8.d5 exd5 9J:le1+
lbe710 . .ixd7+ lbxd7 11.lbxd5 c6
12.lbxe7 (13 ...
lbc5 14.b4) 14.Ir.xe7+ 15.
'ffid6+ 16.Ir.e1 +- Zeitler -
Boerefijn, Bruegge 1978.
7 ... 0-0-0 8.'ffie2 a6 (It is too
bad for Black to continue with:
8 ... i.e7 a6 10.i.c4 h6,
Rafizadeh - M.N owak, Canberra
2000, because after 1l.d5 exd5
12JIxd5 'ffib6 13J::ld1 f5 14.lbd5
'ffia7 15.lbe5+-; 13 ... lbf6 14.
i.xf7 White remains with a
solid extra pawn; 8 ... lbf6, J.
Emms - Stromer, Cappelle la
Grande 1991, 9.a3 a6 10.iLd3
i.e7 1l.lbe4t) 9.i.c4lbf6 10 . .1f4
h6 ll . .l:r.ad1 b5 g5 13.
White's prospects in the
centre as well as on the queen-
side are clearly superior, while
Black's counterplay on the king-
side will hardly be effective,
Goloshchapov - Weisenburger,
Berlin 1997.
It is quite playable for Black
to try: 7 ... i.d6, Ondersteijn -
Deceuninck, Hengelo 2003, al-
though the bishop can easily
be attacked on that square:
8.'ffie2 lbf6 (In case of 8 ... a6 9.
0-0-0 10.lbe4 .ie7 ll.c3
Black will face the difficult task
of defending against the oncom-
ing dangerous kingside attack.)
9.d5lbd8 (10 ...
lbxd7 l1.dxe6+ lbxe6
12.lbb5t.
8. 'ffi e2 i.xc3
The move 8 ... lbge7?! is quite
dubious. It turns out now that
Black's previous move has been
just a loss of precious time in
the opening. 9.lbe4 a6
lbg6 ll.c3 .id6 12.lbfg5lbce7 13.
lbxd6+ cxd6 14. 'ffif3 Buchal -
Neidhardt, Hessen 1991.
9.bxc3 a6
Black's position is terrible af-
ter: 9 ... 'ffixc3 'ffixc2 (10 ...
'if:1a3 ll.d5lbd8 Wxd7
ll.d5 lbd8 Cll ... lbce7
12 . .1xd7+ 13.'if:1b5 14.
lbe5+-) 12 . .ixd7+ 13.dxe6
83
Chapter 5
fxe6 (13 ... lbxe6 14.
'lio>eB (14 .. .'it>cB 15.St.g5+-)
15.lIacl 16Jlxc7 17.
lIxg7+-.
10 .lid3lbge7
10 ... lbf6 11.c4
0-0-0 13.c3 .u.heB 14. lba5
15. .lic6, Vogt - Walter,
Erfurt 1973, and White could
have won here with: 16.lbe5!
lbg417.lbxg4.lixg2 1B.tDe5 .lixfl
19 . .lie4 b6 20.'lio>xfl +-.
1l.c4 12.l1hl h6
13 . .lif4 Jansa - Trapl, Brno
1964. White has a lead in devel-
opment, a couple of powerful
bishops and a mobile pawn-cen-
tre.
c) 6 .. a6 7 . .lixc6 St.xc6
8.d4!
This is much stronger than
B4
the move BJ:te1, which has
brought to White better results
statistically until now, because in
that case Black has a powerful
counter-measure: B ... 9.lbe5
.lid7 11.d4 (or 11.
lbd5 lIcB 12.lbxd7 'lio>xd7= Boudre
- Berges, Marseille 2001) 11 ...
lbf6 12.tDxd7 'lio>xd7 1;2 Ost Han-
sen - Sloth, Aarhus 1976.
8 ... 0-0-0
That is the most popular
move.
About B ... lbf6 9.tDe5 - see
6 ... lbf6 7.d4 a6 8 . .lixc6 .lixc6
9.lbe5.
B ... f6?! - Black now controls
the important e5-square with his
last move, but he weakens the
e6-outpost and deprives his
knight of a reliable base on f6.
His development is slowed down
considerably and White can start
a dangerous attack. 9.d5! 0-0-0
10.b4! 11..lid2 .lib5 12J:tbl
13.lbxb5 axb5 14.a4! bxa4
15.c4!! 16 . .l::i.b4 17.
Black has played several
seemingly logical moves and he
has won three pawns in the pro-
cess. On the other hand, his lag
in development has become
catastrophic and his position
is already beyond salvation.
The game ended very quickly:
17 ... e5 18.':b5 .lic5 19 . .lie3 b6 20 .
.lixc5 21..lixb6! cxb6 22.lIc1
'lio>b8 1-0 J.Anderson -
Aasum, corr. 2000.
If 8 ... then after 9.d5,
Black has serious problems in all
lines, for example: 9 ... 0-0-0
l.e4CDc6 2.lDf3 dS 3.ed YfidS 4.lDc3 'ffi.aS S.ii.bS
(9 ... iLd7 10.'ffi.d4 ltJf6 11.l:el;
9 .. 10.iLf4 e6 11.iLxc7 ltd7
12.dxc6+-; 10 ... iLxd5
12.lDe5 .l:i.c7
14.lDd5) 10.iLg5 (White fails to
obtain any advantage after:
iLxd5 1l.ltJe5 12 .
.!:tfxd1iLe6, Felgaer-N.Vlassov,
Moscow 2004. Now, instead of:
13.lDe4, against which Black
should have played: 13 .. .lhd1
14 . .l:!.d1 f6=, N.Vlasov recom-
mended the following line as the
best for White: 13 . .l:i.xd8+
14.lDe4, however, by playing:
14 ... 15.ltJg5 iLd5 16J::td1
lDf6 17.c4 h6= Black could have
maintained the equality.) 10 ... h6
(10 ... iLe8 11. 12.iLe3 b6
13.iLf4 14. 10 ... ltJf6
11.ttJe5 12.:taxd1 iLe8 13.
I:!.fea; 1l ... iLe8 12. ltJxh5
13.iLe3;\;; 10 ... iLxd5 11.ltJxd5 h6
ltJf6? 13.lDb6+ cxb6 14.
15. rti;a7 16.
iLxf6+-; 12 ... hxg5 13 . .l:!.fd1 l:!.d6
14. 'ffi.a7 g4 15. 16.
13 ... c6
15.lDf4!+-; 14 .. ..l:!d7 15.ltJxc7!)
11.lDe5 hxg5 (1l ... l:.ad1
.i.e8 13.iLe3;\;) 12. Yfixh5 13.
dxc6 f6 14.l:!.fd1! .!:te8 (14 ... l:xd1+
15Jhd1 fe 16 . .l:!.d8+-) 15. cxb 7;\;.
8 ... e6 9.ltJe5 iLd6, Deviatkin-
Vlassov, Moscow 1999, and here
White would have achieved a
great advantage with: 10.ltJxc6
(1l ...
lDe7 13.Yfif6 l:!.f8 14.ltJe4; The
following pawn-sacrifice is not as
good for Black as it seems: 11...
lDe7 12. Yfixg7 13.g3
14. 15. h5 16J:re1
h4 17.ltJe4!, for example: 17 ...
0-0-0 rti;b7 19.b4
20.a3! ltJd5 21.lDc5) 12.Yfif.3 ltJe7
13.ltJe4 14.
9.ltJe5 iLe8
White's most convincing way
to obtain a huge advantage in
that position is the energetic
move:
10.h4!
which was played in the game
Emms - Kristensen, Esbjerg
1996.
10 ...
That capture of the pawn
seems to be the most principled.
In this game Kristensen re-
frained from taking the pawn
and there followed: 10 ...
11..1i.e3 e6 (11 ... 12.ltJe4 e6
13.l:.b1 14.ltJc5) f6
13.lDc4 Yfic6 14.lDa5 Yfixc3 (14 ...
15. Yfif3 c6 16.d5!)
iLxb4 16 . .l:!.xc3 ii.xc3 17.lDxb7
rti;xb7 18. Yfib1+ 'it>a8 19. 'ffi.b3 ii.xd4
(19 ... ii.a5 i.b6 21.'ffi.xa6+
22.d5+-) 20.i.xd4 i.b5 (20 ...
.lhd4 21.Yfixe6+-) 21.c4+-.
Yfixd4 12 . .l:!.hl! c6
12 ... Yfixe5 13. + 'it>d7 14.
i.b2!+-.
85
Chapter 5
White's attack is ex-
tremely powerful, as you can see
in the following lines: 13 .. g5!?
(13 ... lbf6 14 . .l::!.fd1 'fia7 15 . .l:IxdS+
WxdS 16 .lId 1 + 'it>cS 17. 'fi d3+-;
16 ... lbd7 17 . .l:Ixd7+-) g4
(14 ... lbh6 15.l:txb7! 16.
+-) 15.lbxg4 h5 (15 ... 16.
lbe4 and White has excellent
compensation for the pawn.) 16.
e6 (16 ... l::td7 17. 'fia5 hxg4
17 ... 'fixg4 lS.'fie5
.l:Id6 19.'fixhS+-) 17.'fia5
lS.Ii.xb7.
d) 6 ... 0-0-0 7.!:te1
7 ... a6
7 ... e6 S.d3!? - and White can
develop a dangerous queenside
initiative, so he does not need
now to place his pawn on the d4-
square.
7 ... f6 - this move is too tenta-
S6
tive. White would not mind
Black's occupation ofthe centre,
because he has a huge lead in
development and a quite prom-
ising play on the queenside.
S.iLxc6 j.xc6 9.lbe5 i..eS
10.b4 'fib6
This sacrifice with the idea to
open the b-file is quite standard.
It is very dangerous for Black to
accept the sacrifice now and even
later:
10 ... 'fixb4?! 11. 'fif3 'fid6 12.
J:tb1 c6 (12 ... i..c6? Renner -
Porth, Germany 1994, 13. 'fih3+!
14.'fie3+-) 13.lbc4 'fif6 (13 ...
'fid4 14.lbb6+ 'it>bS f5
16.l:.e3 'fig4 17Jld3+-; 13 ... 'fic7
14.d3 b5 15.i..f4 'fia7 16.i..e3+-)
14.'fig4+ e6 (14 ...
15.lbe4+-.
H.d3 f6
11 ... lbf6 'fid4 13.j.b2
(13 ... e6 14.Itab1 'fih4 15.
14.l:tab1 'fia5 (14 ... 'fih4
c6 16.lbe4) c6
(15 ... lbd5 16 . .l:Ib3 c6 17.lbc4 'fic7
18.lbxd5 cxd5 19.1bb6+ 'it>bS
20.lbxd5+-) 16.i..b4 'fic7 17.lbc4
l:.d4 19.93 (19 ...
Ith5 20.i.d4+-) 20.lbe4.
White has wonderful compen-
sation for the pawn after: 11 ...
'fixb4 13. 'fif3 lbf6
(13 ... f6 'fiaS
16.lbe4! I:td5 17.d4; 14 ... fxe5
15.'fixb7+! 'it>d716.lbd5+-; 14 ... c6
15.lbc4 e5 16.:'xe5! fxe5 17.
'fixf8+-) 14J::tab1 'fia7 (14 ... c6
15.lbc4 e6 16.lbe4lbxe4 17.:xe4
lS. 16 ... lbd5 17.i..e3
lbxe3 18.fxe3 19.1bb6+-;
l.e4CLJc6 2.CLJ{3 d5 3.ed fid5 4.CLJc3 fia5
15 ... b5 16.CLJa51Id6 17.CLJb3!? fig4
lB. 16 ... fic5 17.a4 b4
1B.CLJb3 fih5 19. fixh5 CLJxh5
20.CLJa2+-) 15.CLJe4CLJxe4 16Jhe4
f6 b6 (17 ... fiaB 1BJ:teb4
fe 19.:!:tb7, and White's attack is
very dangerous.) lB. l:tc4 l:td6
(lB .. 19.CLJc6+ 20.l:txc6
l:td6 exd6 22.fic6 flb7
23.f1eB flcB 24.fif7, and Black
can hardly complete his develop-
ment. For example, he loses im-
mediately after: 24 ... f1dB 25.
cxb6 26J:te1+-, or 25 ... flb7
26.a4) 19.CLJc6 20Jhc6,
and here the move 20 ... <t>bB,
transposes to the line that we
have just analysed.
(diagram)
12. flg4+ e6, Sermek - Semrl,
Ljubljana 1999 (12 ... 13.
f5 14.f1xf5 fif6 15.fie4+-
Saltaev - Vlassov, Moscow 1996).
After: 13.CLJc4, Black has prob-
lems, for example: 13 .. fld4 (13 ...
f1xb4 fixc3
13 ... fic6 14.f1d4l:td4
15.l:tbl;l;;, and Black is clearly
worse, despite his two-bishop
advantage, because of his lag in
development. White has a pow-
erful pressure in the centre and
on the queenside.
Conclusion
The variations that we have analyzed in this chapter lead to po-
sitions, which are quite similar to the Scandinavian Defence, except
for the early developed black knight on the c6-square. White needs to
play energetically and he often sacrifices a pawn with b2-b4. It is
much more difficult to defend in similar positions than to attack, so
White's chances are clearly superior in all variations.
87
Chapter 6 l.e4 4Jc6 2.ttJf3 g6
3.d4
In this chapter we examine
positions which are typical for
the King's Indian or Modern
Benoni. Black usually loses a
tempo or even two so White gets
the edge without significant
problems.
We will deal in details with:
a) 3 ... d6 and b) 3 ... i.g7.
3 ... lbf6?! leads after 4.e5 to
quite unfavourable for Black
lines from the Alekhine Defence.
3 ... d5?! leads to a bad version
ofthe Scandinavian. The clumsy
move g6 and prematurely devel-
oped knight ensure a solid ad-
vantage to White. 4.exd5
5.lbc3 'a5, Sietio - Saarinen,
Tampere 1994 (5 ... 'h5?! 6.lbb5
'ot>d8 7.i.f4 White deprived the
opponent of castling and wins a
88
pawn, Angskog - Bahram, Oster-
skars 1995; 5 .... 6.d5 lbd8
7 .i.f4 White gained more space
and a great lead in development.
Black's attempt to reduce the
tension by exchanges brought
about a quick mate. 7 ... c6 8.dxc6
9Jhdl bxc6 10.lbb5lbe6
11.lbg5 i.h6 12.lbxe6 i.xf4 13.
l:!.d8# Brynell - Kallerholm,
Rodeby 1998; 5 ... 'd8 - perhaps
this is the most resilient defence.
6.d5lbb8 7.i.b5+ i.d7 8.i.c4 i.g7
9.0-0 lbf6 10.!i.el White main-
tains a lasting pressure due to
his spatial advantage and better
development, Jowett - Gra-
novsky, Dos Hermanas 2004),
when the most enterprising con-
tinuation is 6.i.b5! i.d7 (6 ... a6
7.i.xc6+ bxc6 8.lbe5) 7.d5 lbe5
8.lbxe5 i.xb5 9. lbf6 10.d6!.
Black is badly lagging behind in
development which should prob-
ably cost him some material.
a) 3 ... d6 4.d5 lbb8
It is worse for Black to play:
4 ... lbe5 5.lbxe5 dxe5 6.i.b5 i.d7,
because after 7.,d3, White's ad-
vantage is obvious - he is domi-
nant in the centre, his pawn-
structure is superior and he has
better development. We'll see in
the following examples that a
temporary lead in development
cannot compensate Black for the
sacrificed pawn: 7 ... i.g7 S. '!';tb3
ttJf6 9.i.xd7+ '!';txd710.'!';txb7 0-0
11.f3 a5 (11 .. J:tfbS 12.'!';ta6 ttJh5
13.0-0 ttJf4 14.g3 l1b6 15. '!';tc4
ttJh3+ 16.'it>g2J.Bednarski-Ro-
sin, Hannover 1976) 12. '!';tb3l:i.fb8
13. '!';tc4 l:i.b4 14. '!';te2 ttJh5 15.c3
l:i.b6 16.ttJa3 c6, Milic - Ivkovic,
Sarajevo 1958, when simplest
seems 17.ttJc4 l:i.bb8 18.dxc6
'!';txc6 19.93. It is unclear how
Black could activate his minor
pieces.
5.c4 i.g7
5 ... ttJf6 6.ttJc3 i.g7 7.-te2 only
leads to a transposition.
6.i.e2
6 .. ttJf6
6 ... i.g4 7.0-0 ttJd7 (7 ... i.xf3?!
looks dubious. Mter 8.i.xf3 ttJf6
9.ttJc3 Ruderfer - Timoscenko,
Kiev 1970, arises the same posi-
tion which we analyse after the
moves 6 ... ttJf6 7.ttJc3 i.g4, but
White have saved a tempo on h3)
8.ttJc3 e5 (again 8 ... i.xf3 9.i.xf3
1.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3 g6 3.d4
ttJgf6 10.i.g5 saves White a
tempo on h3, R.Garcia - Fi-
gueroa, Buenos Aires 1963)
9.l::Ib1 ttJgf6 10.b4 0-0 11..1l.e3
ttJe8 12.c5. White has the bishop
pair advantage and an attack on
the queenside, J.Rubinetti -
Figueroa, Mar del Plata 1968.
6 ... c51eads to the Benoni with
two extra tempi for White. That
ensures him the edge against all
defences, for instance: 7.0-0 ttJf6
(7 ... ttJd7 8.ttJc3 ttJgf6 9.h3 0-010.
i.f4) 8.ttJc3 0-0 9.h3 a6, Thor-
steins - Ivkovic, Bela Crkva
1983. Now simplest is 10.i.f4
ttJbd7 11. '!';td2, when e7 -e6 or b7-
b5 are difficult to achieve and
without these breaks Black will
sooner or later perish with insuf-
ficient space.
6 ... e5 7. ttJc3 ttJe7 (7 ... ttJf6 -
see 6 ... ttJf6; in answer to 7 ... ttJd7,
White is not obliged to transpose
to the main KID lines by castling.
He has instead 8.g4 a5 9.i.e3
ttJc5 10.l:.gl b6 1l.h4 ttJf6 12.
ttJd2 Praszak - Ciruk, Suwalki
1999. Black is at a loss to find a
sensible plan while the opponent
has a clear-cut plan on the
queenside; 7 ... i.g4 8.h3 i.xf3
9.i.xf3 ttJe7 10.g4 a5 11.h4 h6 12.
i.e3 White has a stable edge
due to his spatial advantage, a
strong bishop pair and an evi-
dent attacking plan on the left
wing opposed to Black's total
lack of counterplay, Araya -
Figueroa, Mar del Plata 1991)
8.h4 (8.0-0 0-0 leads to the Clas-
sical main line ofthe KID - 1.d4
89
Chapter 6
lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.lbc3 i..g7 4.e4 d6
5.lbf.3 0-0 6. i..e2 e5 7.0-0 lbc6
8.d5 lbe7 - this is not bad for
White of course, but he could try
for more) 8 ... h6 9.h5 g5 10.lbh2
c5 11..ltg4 f5 12.exf5 i..xf5 13.lbfl
14.lbe3 J.Rubinetti - Fi-
gueroa, Buenos Aires 1966.
Black is left with a bad dark-
squared bishop and weak light
squares. That cannot be counter-
weighted by transferring the
knight to d4 because White could
exchange it at any moment.
7.lbc3
The arising position is with a
typical King's Indian structure.
White's two extra tempi guaran-
tee him the advantage in all the
lines.
7 ... 0-0
In the game Romanishin -
Sale, Slovenia 1999, after 7 ... c6
8.0-00-0 9.h3lba6 10.i..e3 e5 11.
dxc6 bxc6 12.a4 13.b4 c5
15.b5lbac7 16.a4
f5 17.a5, White was clearly bet-
ter thanks to his well-advanced
passed pawn. Black's d6-pawn
was quite vulnerable too. His
light-squares were very weak
and particularly the d5-outpost.
The line 7 ... lbbd7 is of no
practical importance, because it
only transposes to the lines
(7 ... 0-08.0-0 lbbd7), that we will
deal with later.
7 ... c5?!, leads to the Benoni
Defence and Black has already
lost two important tempi with
the manoeuvre lbb8-c6-b8, and
you can see a game as an ex-
90
ample later (see 7 ... 0-08.0-0 c5).
After 7 ... lba6, White obtained
a stable edge with quite simple
means in the game Silseth -
Lundkvist, Gausdal1992: 8.0-0
lbc5 a5 10.i..e3 b611.l:tad1
0-0 12.lbd4 i..d7 13.h3.
7 ... e5 8.0-0 0-0 9.iLg5 h6
10.i..h4lbbd7 11.lbd2 Rogers -
Sitanggang, Hong Kong 1982.
The game is similar to positions
from the Petrosian System of the
King's Indian Defence, except
that White has two extra tempi.
7 ... iLg4 8.0-0 0-0 9.iLg5lbbd7
10.h3 iLxf.3 l1.i..xf.3 h6 12.i..e3
:e8- 13. L.Hazai - Zakic,
Budapest 1991. White has the
two-bishop advantage and extra
space. He has the initiative on
both sides of the board.
8.0-0
8 .. lbbd7
8 ... a5 - this move only weak-
ens b5 since Black fails to secure
his knight on c5. 9.i..e3lbbd7 (on
9 ... lba6 10.lbd2 e5 11.a3 h6 12.
b4 White realised the thematic
push b2-b4, whilst Black has
nothing to boast with on the op-
posite flank, Kecskes - Mate,
Budapest 1995) (10 ...
tDeS?! Sismanis - Vazouras,
2000, 11Jladl) 1l.J:Iad1 b6 12.
a3 tDg4 13.i.d4 tDf6 14.h4 Lin-
de strom - Rotariu, corr. 1995,
domination in space and clear
play in the centre and on the
queenside promise White a long-
term advantage.
S ... i.g4 - this move only pre-
sents the opponent with the
bishop pair advantage without
anything in return. 9.h3 i.xf3
10.i.xf3 tDbd7 11.i.e3 c6 (lL.e5
12.b4 tDeS 13.c5 f5 14.c6 Li-
kavsky - Felcir, Tatranske Zruby
2001- White's threats in the cen-
tre and on the queenside are very
dangerous whilst it is difficult for
Black to organise counterplay.
11 ... c5 12.t:'l'd2 leads to Benoni
structures. White is able to play
at any part of the board and the
enemy is doomed to wait, Pham
Minh - Phung Nguyen, Hanoi
2002. After 11...a5 12J:Ic1 b6
13.a3 h6 14.t:'l'c2 15.b4
Black has nothing to oppose to
White's queenside initiative,
Huss - Mikavica, Zurich 19S9.)
12. t:'l'b3 t:'l'c7 13.l:!.acll:!.feS 14.a3
e6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.l':i.fd1 ':'ebS
a5 lS.tDa4 tDeS 19J:tb1
':'b7 20.g3 ':'abS 2l.b3 Jansa -
Nikolic, Vrnjacka Banja 1975.
Black is without counterplay.
The opponent will double rooks
on the d-file and will gradually
prepare a decisive kingside at-
tack.
Black's plan to push b7 -b5
will create plenty of weaknesses
for him.
l.e4 tDc6 2.tDf3 g6 3.d4
S ... c6 9.':'b1 a6 (Mter 9 ... i.g4
10.i.e3 i.xf3 1l.i.xf3, in the
game Kleist - Davis, New York
2001, there arose a position from
the Benoni Defence. White had
a stable advantage, which was
quite typical for that pawn-struc-
ture. He also had a couple of ex-
tra tempi in comparison to the
usual lines.) 10.a3 b5 11.cxb5
cxb5 12.tDd4 e5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.
i.e3 t:'l'e7 15. t:'l'b3 c,t>hS 16.a4 e5
17.tDc2 i.e6 lS.t:'l'a3 tDc6 19.
IUdl Aseev - Petit, Ubeda 1996.
S ... c5. White can easily occupy
the centre in the Benoni Defence,
especially with several extra
tempi. 9.h3 tDa6 10.i.f4 tDc7
1l.e5, Strikovic - Del Rey,
Mondariz 1995.
S ... e6 9.dxe6 (It is possibly
better for White to try: 9.i.g5 h6
10.iLe3.) iLxe6 10.tDd4 tDc6 1l.
iLe3 tDd7 12J:Ic1 tDxd4 13 . ..ixd4;!:;,
and White has extra space, Glei-
zerov - Rossi, Padova 1999.
S ... tDa6 9.iLe3 i.d7 (9 ... tDc5 is
not better. Mter 10. t:'l'c2 a5 11.
.l:.ad1 tDg4 12.i.d4 f6 13.h3 tDe5
14.tDxe5 fxe5 15.i.e3 Gritsak-
G.Kuzmin, Swidnica 1999, White
possesses a clear plan for or-
ganising an attack on the queen-
side. He is going to push b4
whilst the opponent is deprived
of counterplay. Alternatively,
10 ... tDg4 1l.i.d4 e5 12.dxe6 tDxe6
13.i.xg7 c,t>xg7 ensures
White a small, but lasting edge
due to his spatial advantage and
possibilities for active play all
over the board, Baumgartner -
91
Chapter 6
Tibbert, corr. 1989.) 10J:tc1 :e8
ll.a3 e6 12.dxe6 (It is more logi-
cal for White to play 12.b4!? exd5
13.exd5;1;, and he has a clear ad-
vantage due to the quite mis-
placed black knight on the a6-
square.) 12 ... l:txe6 13.ltJd4 lle8
14.f3, and once-again Black has
problems typical for the King's
Indian Defence in positions after
an exchange on d4, Kiriakov -
Nisipeanu, Santo Domingo 2003.
8 ... e5 (The Petrosian
System in action again ... ) 9 ... hS
ttJbd7 (10 ... g5 l1.i.g3
ltJh5 12.ttJe1 ttJf4 ttJd7
14.ltJc2 ltJf6 l:!xc8 16.
ltJe3 Radziewicz - N emcova,
Wuppertal 1998) 1l.ltJd2 lie8
(Following ll ... a6 12.b4 White
is way ahead in his attack, Huss
- Hamed, Thessaloniki 1984. A
logical answer to ll ... c5, Rogers
- Sitanggang, Hong Kong 1982
is 12.a3, preparing b2-b4 with
a strong bind on the queenside.)
12.b4 ttJf8, Galyas - B.Nagy,
Budapest 2003. Now the spatial
advantage and lead in develop-
ment enable the thematic break-
trough 13.c5 without any fur-
ther preparation.

92
9 ... c6
By this move Black is plan-
ning to open up the c-file. How-
ever White is better prepared for
play on the queenside so his
chances for taking over the open
file are higher.
Alternatives are:
9 ... a5 - see 8 ... a5
9 . .te3 ttJbd7 9 ... ttJc5
- see 8 ... ltJaS 9.i.e3 ttJc5

9 .. This move has no in-
dependent significance. One way
or another Black will transfer the
play to the King's Indian or Mod-
ern Benoni. 10. c5. In the
current game he preferred the
Modern Benoni. White shows yet
another way to convert the two
extra tempi into an advantage:
ll.ttJd2 as 12.l:!ad1 13.h3 e6
14.dxe6 fxeS 15.ttJf3 ttJf8 lS.l:!d2
Tisdall- Ng, Jakarta 1997;
9 ... c5 - this is another way of
transposing to the Modern Beno-
ni. 10.ttJd2 ltJe5 (To 10 ... ttJe8,
Dupont - Avron, France 2002,
White could take over the centre
by l1.f4. Now Black's attempts
to generate counterplay fail, e.g.
11 ... 12.l:tbl or 11 ... .td4
i.xf2+ 13.:xf2 eS 14.ttJf3
with excellent prospects in the
centre or on either flank.) ll.h3
as 12.a4 b6 13.f4 ttJed7 14 . .tf2
i.b7 15.3Lg3 e5 16.f5 with a king-
side attack and a solid space ad-
vantage, Lysyj - Turdialiev,
Denizli 2004;
9 ... e6 - Black is suffocating
because of lack of space, but
opening up central files favours
White who is ahead in develop-
ment. 10. a6 (hardly better
is 10 ... lbe5 11.lbxe5 dxe5 12JHdl
exd5 13.cxd5. White's initiative
in the centre and on the left
wing is clearly outweighing the
enemy's counterplay on the
other side of the board, Seidl -
Kamal, Schlosspark 1996) II.
llad1 Zimmer - Puster,
Germany 1996, 12.h3 Black is
unable to set up an active plan
whilst the opponent could ad-
vance in the centre and on the
queenside;
9 ... e5 - at the surface this
looks like the Classical KID, but
White has two extra tempi!
10.lbd2! - a typical KID manoeu-
vre, which is aimed at utilising
a future weakening of the a5 or
b6 squares. 10 .. . lbe8 (10 ...
wastes yet another tempo - 11.b4
lbe8 12.c5 f5 13.f3 1:.g8 14.c6
lbdf6 15.cxb7 i.xb7 16.lbc4 lbh5
17.lba5 Kleeschaetzky - H. Ur-
ban, Germany 1995) 11.b4 a5,
Brond - Stella, Mar del Plata
1967 (11 ... f5 12.3 f4 13.i.f2 g5
14.c5 lbdf6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.lbc4
l:If7 17.a4 Longren - Nazarian,
USA 1996, leads to a pet line of
V. Korchnoi against the KID with
two extra tempi at that!), when
simplest is 12.a3 f5 13.f3 - the
move a 7 -a5 only has weakened
Black's queenside;
9 ... lbg4 10.i.d4 lbge5 (or 10 ...
lbgf6 11.h3 c5 12.i.e3 a6 13.
Salata - Cierny, Rimavska
Sobota 1975, again we have the
1.e4 lbc6 2.lb{3 g6 3.d4
Modern Benoni with two extra
tempi for White) 11.lbxe5 lbxe5
(not any better is 11.. .dxe5 12.
i.e3 f5 13.3 lbf6 14.c5, when
White's initiative on the left side
ofthe board is outpacing Black's
play on the kingside, Belli Pino
- Carvajal, La Paz 2000) 12.c5
i.d7?? (12 ... dxc5 13.i.xc5) 13.f4
1-0 Azevedo - Batista, corr. 1998.
IO.h3
IO lbe8
Alternatives are:
10 ... 11.1:.e1 lbc5 12.e5
lbfe4 13.lbxe4 lbxe4 14.i.d3 lbc5
15.iH1 cxd5 16.cxd5 a5 17J;tcl
White has gained space in the
centre which allows him to at-
tack on either flank, Arutiunov
- Bannik, Yerevan 1981;
10 ... 11.l:tc1 c5 - the Mod-
ern Benoni again. 12.a3 a6 13.
b5 14.b4! cxb4 (there is no
sufficient compensation for the
queen after 14 ... dxe5
16.l:ta1 17.:ili1 e4 18.lbg5
bxc4 19.:a4!) 15.axb4 16.
:bl all the files on the queen-
side open up in favour of White
who is better developed and
dominates in the centre, Fajardo
- Majul, Barranquilla 1999;
93
Chapter 6
10 ... l2Jc5 cxd5 12.cxd5
(12 ... a5 13JHd1 14.
dxc5 15.e5 Lelchuk -
Zatulovskaya, Alma-Ata 1980)
.l:lc8 a5, H.Kra-
mer - L.Szabo, Zaanstreek 1946,
when White could grasp the
initiative on the queenside by
15.b4 axb4 10 ... a6
1l.a4 cxd5 12.cxd5 13.l2Jd2
l2Jc5, Basin - Thomas, Detroit
1991. Black has compromised his
queenside. A consistent way of
using that seems 14.l2Jc4
15. with fair chances oftak-
ing over the only open file and
bright prospects in the centre
and on the kingside.
l1.t!.cl a6
12.dxc6! bxc6 13.c5 dxc5
l2Jc7, A.Yegiazarian -
Kalantarian, Yerevan 1995.
Black's pawn chain is ruined, the
pieces are ill-coordinated. These
drawbacks could be underlined
by the calm
b) 3 ... 4.d5
(diagram)
The only move for Black here
that leads to original positions is:
4 ... l2Je5
94
4 ... l2Jb8 5.c4 d6 transposes to
the line a.
5.l2Jxe5 6.c4 d6
About 6 ... 7.Si.d3 d6 - see
6 ... d6

7 ... 8.0-0 l2Jf6 9.l2Jc3 0-0
10.h3 e6 (White has the better
game after 10 ... e5 l1...ig5 h6
Davies
- Hoi, Espergaerde 1987, when
White could practically force
the opponent to part with some
material by the simple 14.l2Jb5
15.Si.xh6; 14 ... l2Jf4 15.l2Jxc7
l2Jxh3+ 16.gxh3 Si.xh3 17.f3. By
a precise defence White should
be able to neutralise the enemy
threats on the kingside.)
c6 12. cxd5 13.cxd5 e5 14.a4
a6 15.a5 Si.d7 16.l2Ja4 Black has
nothing to oppose to White's ini-
tiative on the queenside, Kaspa-
rov - Lefstein, Catonsville (si-
multan) 1997.
7 ... e6 - this move is un con-
sistent. Black is "threatening" to
create himself a stranded pawn
on c7 after exchanging on d5.
8.l2Jd2 exd5 9.cxd5 l2Jf6 (rela-
tively better is 9 ... 10.0-0,
when White still has more space,
better development and easy
play against the c7-pawn) 10.
lDf3 lDd7 11.lDxe5 lDxe5 12.0-0.
The vulnerable dark squares in
Black's camp ensure a solid ad-
vantage to White, I.Ibragimov -
Delithanasis, Ano Liosia 1995.
7 ... c6 8.0-0 g5!? - this is a
logical attempt to bolster up the
strong bishop in the centre.
(White's play is easier in the
event of 8 ... i.g7 9.lDc3 lDf6 10.
h3 0-0 11.i.e3 i.d7, Somlai - G.
Horvath, Pecs 1998. Now 12.f4
'?fic7 13.'?fif3;!; keeping all options
open seems quite good.) 9.lDc3
h6 10.i.e3 lDf6 11.f3 l:tg8 12.
'?fid2 i.d7 13.lDe2 e6 14.dxe6
i.xe6, Roeder - Van Mil, Ger-
many 2002. Here logical continu-
ation of White's strategy is 15.
lDd4;!; threatening to swap the
light-squared bishop or drop
onto f5.
7 ... c5 8.0-0 lDf6 (or 8 ... Si.g7
9.lDc3 lDf6 10.f4 0-0, Malich -
G.Gonzales, Leipzig 1973. In the
current position White is able to
gain space on the kingside and
gradually p;repare a storm there.
11.f5 lDd7 12.i.e3 lDe5 13.i.e2;!;)
9.lDd2 lDh5, Moller - Hertweck,
Germany 1994 (in response to
9 ... i.g4, Dudukin - N.Gavrilov,
Bor 2000, White has 10. '?fia4+
l.e4 lDc6 2.lD{3 g6 3.d4
i.d7 11. or 10 ... 11.
i.xd7 12.lDf3 and White
is on top on account of the strong
bishop pair.), 10.lDf3 i.g7 11.
lIe1 0-0 (11 ... e5 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.
e5 0-0 14.i.e4) 12.h3 e5. The
only active try. 13.dxe6 fxe6 (13 ...
i.xe6 14.i.g5 '?fib6 15.:tb1;!;) 14.e5
dxe5 15.i.g5 '?fic7 16.i.e4;!; the
extra central pawn hinders
Black's bishop from coming into
play.
B.lDc30-0
Or 8 ... i.xc3 9.bxc3 l:te8 10.
0-0, and White has a bishop-pair
and in case the game is opened -
he will enjoy a stable advantage.
9.Si.h6 l:teB 10.'?fid2 lDg4 (oth-
erwise White's bishop will sup-
port an eventual kingside attack)
1l.Si.g5 i.f6 12.i.xf6 lDxf6 13.
0-0 lDd7 14.f4 c6 15.'it>h1
16Jlae1 '?fid417J:te3 Matulovic
- Stojanovic, Yugoslavia 1994.
Conclusion
In this chapter we examine positions which are known from the
King's Indian or Modern Benoni. However Black wasted time on
manoeuvres with the queen's knight which gives White in compari-
son to the above-mentioned openings important extra tempi for de-
velopment. Therefore the first players can count on a tangible ad-
vantage.
95
Chapter 7 l.e4 ct:Jc6 2.ct:Jf3 d6
The basic idea of that move is
to develop the bishop to the g4-
square, followed by d6-d5, usu-
ally preceded by e7-e6.
3.d4
We will analyse in details: a)
3 ... Ji.g4, b) 3 ... f5 and c) 3 . /2\f6.
About 3 ... g6 - see 2 ... g6; about
3 ... e6 4.ttJc3 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4
ttJc6 3.ttJf3 d6 4.ttJc3; as for 3 ... e5
4.Ji.b5 - see Chapter 17 from our
Book 1.
a) 3 .. Ji.g4
This move is obviously pre-
mature, because after White's
most natural move:
4.d5!
Black is faced with serious
problems to solve.
4 ttJe5
This reaction seems to be the
96
most logical. White however, ob-
tains a stable advantage with a
temporary queen-sacrifice.
4 ... Si.xf3?! - a dubious move.
Black is wasting time and gives
the opponent the bishop pair
advantage. 5. ttJeS 6.
(much worse is 6 ... ttJf6?
ttJxe4 S.Si.bS+ ttJd7 9.
Si.xd7+ 'it>xd7 7 ...
9.ttJc3 g6 10.Si.bS+
'it>dS 11.a3 12.i.e3+- Ly-
tchak - Mittag, Germany 1997;
Black is unable to regain the
pawn: 9 ... ttJxe4 10.i.bS+ 'it>dS 11.
.tIcS 12.a3 7.
f4 ttJd7 (After 7 ... ttJg6?! S.Si.d3 e6
9.dxe6 fxe6 10.Si.c4+- Black will
hardly finish development, En-
gelhart - Hallmann, Oeffingen
2002; somewhat better is S ... c6
9.0-0 ttJf6 10.ttJc3) S.Ji.e3 ttJgf6
9.ttJd2 g6, Basheer - Djikerian,
Beirut 2000, when simplest is
10.Si.e2 Ji.g7 11.0-0. Although
Black's position looks very solid,
the lead in development and the
bishop pair secure an advantage
to White.
In case of 4 ... ttJbS, Black pre-
sents White with two tempi;
moreover his prematurely devel-
oped bishop comes under attack
too. 5.h3, and now no matter
where Black retreats his bishop
- White easily obtains a great
advantage:
and now no matter where Black
retreats his bishop - White eas-
ily obtains a great advantage:
5 ... ii.h5 lbf6 7.g4 ii.g6
B.lbc3 e5 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.e5 lbfd7
11.exd6 ii.xd6 lbf6 13.
Radulov - Calvo Minguez,
Siegen 1970;
5 ... ii.xf3 lbd7 (6 ... lbf6
7.'b3 lbbd7?! B.'xb7 lbxe4
9.lba3 'bB 10.'c6; 7 ... 'cB
B.ii.e3lbbd7 - see 6 ... lbd7 7.
B.ii.e3 lbgf6; 6 ... g6 7.lbc3
B.g4lbf6 9.h4 h5 10.g5lbfd7
Hamdouchi - Picarda,
Cannes 1999) 'cB
lbgf6 9.lbd2 g6 ii.g7 11.
0-00-0 12.c3 c5 13.a4 14.a5
a6 15.f4 lIfbB 16. ctJeB 17.ctJc4
ii.h6 .l:i.dB 19.ii.g4 Al
Modiahki - Eid, Dubai 1995;
5 ... - Black is just mak-
ing fun of the chess-playing axi-
oms and therefore the fact that
he got crushed is hardly surpris-
ing: 6.lbc3 ctJf6 h6 B.ii.e3
l.e4 ctJc6 2.ctJ{3 d6 3.d4
e5 9.dxe6 3l..xe6 10.lbd4 ..id7 11.
ii.c4 ii.e7 12. 'e2 lbc6 13.0-0-0
14.f4 0-0 15.g4lbh7 16.ctJd5
i.dB 17.ctJf5 .l:i.eB i.e6
19.h4 'iit'hB 20.g5 h5 21.g6 fxg6
22. 23 . .l:i.dg1 ZifB 24.
lbde7 1-0 Boleslavsky - Duz-
Khotimirsky, Moscow 1942.
5.ctJxe5 ii.xdl c6
7.dxc6
7 . 'a5+
This is better than: 7 ... a6? B.
c7+ axb5 9.cxdB'+ .l:i.xdBI0.lbxf7
'iit'xf7 11.'iit'dl, and White remains
with a solid extra pawn in the
endgame.
8.lbc3 0-0-0
B ... a6 9.b4! (This is much
stronger than: 9.lbc4 'xb5 10.
lbxb5 axb5 11.ctJb6 .l:.a6 12.ctJd5
l:txc6 13.'iit'xd1, as it was played
in the game Duppel - Schlind-
wein, Germany 2000.) 9 ... axb5
(9 ... 10.lbxb5 axb5 11.cxb7
l:tbB 12.lbc6 l:1xb7 13.'iit'xdl+-)
10.bxa5 bxc6 Il.ctJxc6 ii.xc2 12.
lbb4! and Black's bishop is com-
pletely isolated: 12 ... ii.a4 13.
lbcd5! lIa5 (13 ... 14.lbb6 .l:.bB
15.ii.e3+- and Black will have
problems to stop White's passed
a-pawn.) 14.lbc6 bIaB 15.ctJc7+
97
Chapter 7
<;t>d7 16.lLlaB 17.i..e3 lLlf6
1B . .l::i.c1+! <;t>b7 19.1Llb6+-, and
White's position is totally win-
ning.
9.lLlc4
9 ..
It is just terrible for Black to
continue with: 9 ... thc3 10.bxc3
i..xc2, Gaggiottini - Giurato,
Gubbio 1999, 1l.lLla5 i..xe4 12.
lLlxb7 lleB 13.3 i..f5
In case of9 ... White must
play very resolutely and exploit-
ing his lead in development he
can organize a powerful kingside
attack: 10.a3 (In the event
of 10 ... White should play
like after 9 ... The fact that
the pawn is already on a3 does
not make any difference.) 1l.i..e3
12 . .l::i.xd1, and Black is al-
ready probably beyond salvation,
for example: 12 ... bxc6 (12 ...
13.cxb7 <;t>xb7 14.lLla5+ 15.
13.i..xc6
a6 (13 ... e6 hardly helps much
against White's attack, the game
Spraggett - South, Canada 1976
did not last long: 14.ct:Jb5! d5
15.ct:Jxa7+ 16.lLlb5
dxc4+ e5 19.i..b6
1-0. There is nothing surprising
9B
about that if we see Black's
kingside pieces which failed to
come into play; Black loses im-
mediately after the greedy: 13 ...
15.lLlb5 :leB
16JH1 +-; Black will have to de-
fend against a very dangerous
attack after: 13 ... lLlf6 14.lLlb5, for
example: 14 ... a6 15.lLla7 'It>bB 16.
14 . .l:.d5 15.I:ta5!!
16Jha6!! 17.'lt>e2
d5 1B.lLlb5! with unavoidable
mate.
10.lLld5
10 ... bxc6 11..lta6+ 'It>bB 12.
lLlxc7 14.
Donaldson - South, Se-
attle 19BB.
10 .. :bB 1l.c7 12.lLlcb6+
axb6 13.lLlxb6+ 'It>xc7 14.lLlxaB+
':xaB 15.'lt>xd1 +- Ramirez Gon-
zalez - Mingo Fernandez, Tarre-
ga 1995.
10 ... bxc6 12.
'It>xd1 cxd5 13.exd5 lLlf6 14.lLle3
e6 Donaldson - Ambler, Seattle
19BB - and White remains with
a solid extra pawn.
1l.lLlxc7 12.cxb7 ..txe4
13 . ..te3 'It>xb7
It is not better for Black to
play: 13 ... 14.lLla5 'It>bB
(Black loses after: 14 ... ..txh1 15.
i..xa7 i..c6 17.
lLlxc6+-) i..h3 (15 ... i..xh1
16.i..xh1 7 17 .llc1 +-; 16 ... neB
17.:c1 lLlf6 lIdB 19.
..tb5+-) 16.i..d5 i..d7 17.i..xf7 g6
1B.0-0-0, and White's initiative
is very dangerous despite the
material equality.
14.3 ..td5
15.tija5+ 'it>b8 16.i.c6 i.e6
17 . .l:i.d1 ctJf6 18.l:.d4 'it>c7 19.
O-O and White's attack is pow-
erful in that endgame, Palkovi -
Brandies, Hungary 1992.
b) 3 . f5
This risky attempt by Black
to fight for the centre will not be
effective at all. White can easily
prove it to be unnatural and pre-
mature.
4. ctJc3 ctJf6
Black would not fare any bet-
ter after: 4 ... fxe4 5.ctJxe4 ctJf6
(5 ... g6 6.d5 ctJb8 7.i.d3; 5 ... d5
6.ctJc3 ctJf6 7.i.b5) 6.ctJxf6+ exf6
7.d5 ctJe5 8.ctJd4, Gligoric - Ro-
senstein, USA 1963, Black's po-
sition is very difficult. His e6-
square is quite weak; White has
extra space and better develop-
ment.
l.e4 ctJc6 2. ctJ(3 d6 3.d4
5.exf5 i.xf5 6.d5 lLlb4
After 6 ... lLle5, Black's devel-
oped pieces can be attacked:
7.lLld4 i.d7 8.f4 lLlg6 (8 ... lLleg4
9.h3 lLlh6 10.g4, and White's
lead in development is over-
whelming; 8 ... lLlf7 9.i.b5, and
White's knight penetrates the
e6-square.) 9.h4, Black's de-
fence is extremely difficult,
because of the problems with
the development of his king-
side.
It is not better for Black to try:
6 ... ctJb8 7.ctJd4 i.d7 8.i.c4 c6 9.
0-0 b5 (9 ... i.g4 10. cxd5
1l.lLlxd5 e5 12.f3 i.d7 13.f4 ctJc6
14.fxe5 ctJxe5 15.lLle6 i.xe6 16.
lLlxf6+ gxf6 17.i.xe6+-) 10.dxc6
bxc4 1l.cxd7+ lLlbxd7
d5 13.i.g5+-) 12.ctJe6
+-.
7.ctJd4
After 7 ... i.d7 8.a3lLla6 9.i.a6
ba 10.i.g5 'it>f7 White
dominates in the centre and he
has a great advantage, because
of the weak light squares in
Black's camp.
It is still slightly better for
Black to try: 7 ... 8.i.c4 c6
9.dxc6, but he has great prob-
lems to solve with his develop-
ment: 9 ... ctJxc6 (9 ... bxc6 10.0-0
d5 11.i.b3, and White has a
pressure in the centre.) 10.0-0
ctJxd4 (10 ... ctJe5 1l.i.b5+ c;t>f7
12.i.a4 g6 13.i.b3+ c;t>g7 14.
lLlxf5+ 15.lLlb5! lLlf3+ 16.
17.i.e6+-)
i.xc2 12JIe1 e5 (12 ... i.f5 13.
99
Chapter 7
.ig5) 13.f4 e4 (13 .... 14.
tDb5, and White has a powerful
attack against Black's king
stranded in the centre, despite
the material equality.) 14.tDxe4
.ixe4 15..lhe4+ tDxe4
'iti>dB(16 ... .ie717 . .ie3+-) 17 . .id5
1B . .ie3 .ie7 (lB .. 19.
20 . .id4) 19 . .ixb7
.l:[bB 20 . .ic6 d5 (20 ... 2l.
b4!)
(22 ... .if6 22 ... .:.fB
23. 23 . .id4+- and White's
compensation for the exchange
is excellent with a couple of
pawns and two all-powerful bish-
ops dominating all over the
board.
S . .ib5 e6 9.dxe6 bxe6
Black cannot solve his prob-
lems with 9 ... tLJxc6, after the
natural reaction: 10.tLJf5
11.0-0, and White remains with
a clear advantage - he has a
bishop-pair in an open position,
moreover Black must solve the
problem of the safety of his
king.
10 . .ia4 MeS
10 ... .ig6 1l.a3 e5 12.axb4
exd4 13.
1l.a3 tDbd5
11 ... tDa6 12. .ig4 13.

12.tDxd5 tDxd5 13. .ig4
Black cannot solve the prob-
lems of the defence with his
other moves either: 13 ... e6 14.
tDxf5 exf5 15.0-0, or 13 ... g6
14.c4 .ig4 .if5 (15 ... tDf6
16. 17 . .ixc6+ .id 7
1B . ..Itxd7+ tDxd7 19.b3 tDc5 20.
100
.l:Ibl) 16.tDxf5 gxf5 17. tDf6
1B.c5.
e5 (White remains
with a solid extra pawn in the
endgame after: 14 ... tLJf6 15.
16.tDxc6 .id7 17.tDxa7l:rc7
1B . .ixd7+ 'iti>xd7 19.tDb5 l:rxc2
20.tLld4l:tc4 21..ie3+-.) 15 .ixe6
.tixe6 16.tLlxe6 tLlf6 .if5
lS.f3 tLJd5 White
pressed easily his advantage
home in the game Stoltz - Mi-
kenas, Warsaw 1935.
e) 3 ... tLlf6 4.tLle3
4 ... .ig4
Besides that logical move, we
will analyse too: 4 ... d5, 4 ... .id7,
4 ... e6, 4 ... e5 and even the more
logical 4 ... a6, with the idea to
prevent White from playing ..Itb5,
as well as 4 ... g6, transposing to
the Pirc Defence.
About 4 ... e6 5.d5 - see l.e4 e6
2.d4 ttJc6 3.ttJf3 d6 4.ttJc3 ttJf6
5.d5.
4 ... d5 5.e5 ttJe4 6 . ..id3 ..if5
7:ffie2 ttJxc3 8.bxc3t.
4 ... ..id7 5.e5 dxe5 6.dxe5 ttJg4
7 . ..if4.
4 ... e5 5 . ..ib5 - this transfers
to the Ruy Lopez and the main
lines have been analysed in our
book 1 (5 ... ..id7 6 . ..ixc6 -line a,
Chapter 17, 5 ... exd4 6.ttJxd4 ..id7
7.i.xc6 - variation b, Chapter
17), now we will analyse some
seldom played lines:
After 5 ... a6? 6 . ..ixc6 bxc6
7.dxe5 Luque- Walters, Luzern
1968, White has a solid extra
pawn in the centre;
The same happens to Black
after: 5 ... ..ie7? 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.
'ffixd8 ..ixd8 8.ttJxe5 Redichova
- Suchoradska, Czech Republic
1999;
In case of 5 ... ..ig4?, White's
simplest line is: 6.d5 a6 7 . ..ia4 b5
8.ttJxb5 axb5 9.i.xb5 ..id7 10.
dxc6+- Krupkova - Jurikova,
Czech Republic 1993;
The move 5 ... ttJd7, does not
help Black's development and its
only merit is that the e5-pawn
has been defended, therefore
White should not be attracted by
the possible doubling of pawns,
instead, he should simply de-
velop his pieces, for example: 6.
0-0 ..ie7 7.ttJd5 0-0 8.ttJxe7+
'ffixe7 9J:telt, as it was played in
the game Stoliar - Antoshin,
Leningrad 1957. White has a
1.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJ{3 d6 3.d4
slight, but stable advantage with
his two bishops and complete
dominance in the centre.
4 ... g6 5 . ..ib5 (That move em-
phasizes the fact that the devel-
opment of the knight to c6 is still
rather premature for Black.)
5 ... a6 (It is too bad for Black to
play: 5 ... ..id7 6.e5! dxe5 7.dxe5
ttJg4 8. 'ffie2 ..ig7 9 . ..if4 a6 10.i.c4
e6 11.h3 ttJh6 12.0-0-0 ttJf5 13.
ttJe4 'ffie7 14.g4 ttJh6 15.ttJf6+-
Wojtkiewicz - Stenzel, Nassau
1999.) 6 . ..ixc6+ (White plays the
following line quite seldom, but
it is still interesting: 6 . ..ia4!? b5
7 . ..ib3 ..ig7 B.h3 0-09.0-0 e6 10.
a3 ..ib7 11.':e1 ttJa5 12 . ..ia2 c5 13.
d5 e5 14.b4 cxb4 15.axb4 'ffic7 16.
bxa5 'ffixc3 17 . ..id2 'ffic7 1B.c4
Kozakov - Zajarnyi, Lviv 1998)
6 ... bxc6 7.h3 (The main defect
of Black's position is that his
pawns in the centre are immo-
bile and they stand in the way of
his own pieces.) 7 ... ..ig7 8.0-0
0-0 9.ne1 .ubB (9 ... ttJd7 10 . .ie3
..ib7 11. 'ffid2 c5, Kacheishvili -
Yilmaz, Ankara 1997, now it is
good to start play against the
weak pawns: 12.dxc5 ttJxc5 13.
..ixc5 dxc5 14. 'ffig5, for example:
14 ... 'ffid6 15.l:tad1 iLd4 16.4:Je2;
15 ... 4:Jc6 16.4:Jd5; 15 ... 'ffib6 16.
4:Ja4 'ffib5 17.ttJxc5 .if6 18.'ffie3
Black's bishop pair is not enough
to compensate the lack of pawn,
because White's pieces are very
active. For instance, lB .. . iLxb2?
fails to 19.J:lbl+- with severe
material losses, or 14 ... i.xc3
15.bxc3 'ffid6 16.l:i.ad1 'ffie6 17.
101
Chapter 7
1B.ttJd4!; 15 ... f5 16.
e5 - worse is 16 ... e6 17.ttJg5
1B.exf5 -17.ttJxe5 lB.
exf5 .i:!.xf5 19.ttJg4. White is a
sound pawn up.) 10 . .i:!.b1 h6 (10 ...
ttJd7 h6 12.ii.h4 g5 13.
ii.g3 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 'ifie7
16.ttJa4 .i:!.eB 17. ttJf8 1B.b3
19.ttJc5 ttJg6 20.l:.bd1 2l.
ttJd3 .td6 22. 'ifixc6 .txh3 23.
ttJdxe5 ttJxe5 24 . .txe5 ':'xe5 25.
ttJxe5 26Jhd6 cxd6 27.
gh+- Vuckovic - Petronijevic, Bu-
dva 2003.) 1l..te3 12.
ttJd7, Mehlhorn - Diebl, Ger-
many 1996. Now it is a good idea
to fix the weaknesses on the
queenside by 13.b4! which leaves
Black without counterplay, e.g.:
13 ... e5 14.dxe5 ttJxe5 15.ttJxe5
.te5 16 . .ta7 J:IaB 17 . .td4t. Black
had to part with the bishop pair,
but not with his weaknesses;
10 ... .tb7 11 . .tg5 h6 12 . .tf4 'it>h7
13.b4 (The attempt to acti-
vate the bishops by 13 ... ttJh5
14 . .th2 c5 15.bxc5 dxc5 fails to
16.ttJd5! .txd5 17 . .i:!.xbB 'ifixbB
1B.exd5) Black has a
solid, but very passive position.
It is difficult to find counterplay,
Hildner - Dunne, Email 1999.
4 ... a65.h3
102
And now:
5 ... e6 6 . .td3 .te7 7.0-0 h6
(7 ... 0-0 B.a3 e5, Crespo - Schre-
urs, IECC 1996, 9.d5 ttJbB 10.ttJe2
c6 11.c4) B.a3 0-0 9 . .te3 .td7
10. 'ifid2 e5 (10 ... b5 is dangerous
due to 11.e5 ttJd5 12 . .txh6! gxh6
13.ttJxd5 exd5 14. 11.d5
ttJbB 12.ttJe2 c6 13.c4 cxd5 14.
cxd5 a5 15.b4, White seized the
centre and has a lasting initia-
tive on the queenside, Studnicka
- Vorsilka, Svetla nad Sazavou
199B;
The position after 5 ... e5 oc-
curred in several games. Unfor-
tunately simplification by 6.dxe5
does not promise an edge: 6 ...
ttJxe5! 7.liJxe5 dxe5
Wxd8 9 . .i.g5 .i.e6 10.0-0-0+ WcB
11.f4 exf4 12.e5 liJd7= Delchev-
Drazic, Nova Gorica 2005. That's
why I propose the consistent de-
veloping move 6 . .te3 (if
Black weakens his kingside by
6 ... g6, trying to transpose to the
Pirc, 7.dxe5! is already a good
option). Here my novelty is
7.g4!?, with the following possi-
bilities: 7 ... h6 B . .i.g2 9.
7 ... exd4 B.liJxd4 liJe5 (B ...
0-0 9.g5 liJd7 10.liJxc6 bxc6
11. nbB 12.0-0-0; B ... h6
9 . .i.g2) 9.f4 liJg6 10. 7 ...
0-0 B.g5 liJd7 (B ... liJh5 9.l:.gl)
9.:g1 exd4 10.ttJxd4 liJxd4 11.
liJe5 12 . .te2t liJc6 (12 ...
13.0-0-0 .te6 14.f4ii5. Sum-
ming up, Black's extra pawn has
no influence on the play, whilst
the open file h, spatial advantage
and advanced pawns on the
kingside promise White good at-
tacking chances.) 13.
- that is very risky indeed, but
otherwise Black could suffer an
attack for free, 14.0-0-0i:O;
5 ... g6 6.iLe3 iLg7
Black tested:
7 ... h6 - this move hampers a
short castling, Samar - Ilic,
Penrith 2003, 8.d5 ltJe5 (inferior
is 8 ... ltJb8 9.a4! ltJbd7 10.iLe2,
White is close to finishing devel-
opment and beginning active op-
erations on the queenside or in
the centre. It is difficult to Black
to oppose a sensible plan) 9.ltJxe5
dxe5 10.0-0-0 b5 (or 10 ...
l1.f3 12. 11.f3 e6
exd5
13.exd5 ltJd7 14.iLa3 :b8 15.
ltJe4t Black's king is stuck in the
centre;
7 ... b5 8.iLd3 e5 (or 8 ... iLb7
9.a40-0 10.axb5 axb5 11.0-0 b4
12.ltJd5 e6, De Coverly - Foster,
Kidlington 1991, when White
gets a small, but lasting edge by
the calm 13.ltJxf6+ 14.c4t
with a spatial advantage) 9.dxe5
ctJxe5, Limpert - Diebl, Germany
2004, the opponents signed a
draw here, but 10.ctJxe5 dxe5
1.e4 ctJc6 2.ctJ{3 d6 3.d4
l1.a4 b4 12.ltJa2 a5 13 . .lld1 0-0
14.iLc5 15. is in White's
favour in view of the overex-
tended enemy pawns;
7 ... e6 8.iLh6 0-0
Czoeppan - Klee, Wattens 1995,
White managed to swap the
central defender - the bishop on
g7, so he can afford sharp ac-
tions: 10.0-0-0 b5 b4 12.
ltJe2 a5 (too slow is 12 ... 13.
g4! ctJd7 14.g5) 13.ctJf4 a4 14.e5
ctJd5 (14 ... ctJd7 15.h4) 15.ctJxd5
exd5 16.iLb5 iLd7 17.iLxc6
18.h4. The weakness of the
kingside dark squares looks a
more weighty factor than the far-
advanced black pawns on the
opposite flank;
7 ... d5?! 8.e5 ctJe4, and in this
position, in the game Neves -
Frazao Portugal 1993, White
played 9. and after 9 ... i.f5
failed to hold the position. Natu-
rally, it was much stronger for
White to play instead the obvi-
ous: 9.ltJxe4! dxe4 10.ctJg5 f6
(10 ... 1l.b3) 1l.exf6 exf612.
ctJxe4, and White remains with
an extra pawn;
7 ... 0-0 8.d5 ctJa5 9.a4 e6 10.
iLe2 exd5 1l.exd5 c6, and here
instead of: 12.dxc6 ctJxc6 13.0-0
d5 14.ctJd4t Zhuravliov - Don-
guines, Moscow 1994, it is more
precise for White to play: 12.b4
ctJxd5 13 . .ltd4 ctJxb4
ctJxc2+ 15. cJ;txg7 16.0-0,
and Black's three pawns for the
piece are not sufficient compen-
sation.
5.iLe3
103
Chapter 7
and Black has five logical
moves in that position: c1)
5 ... d5, c2) 5 ... e5, c3) 5 ... g6, c4)
5 .. a6 and c5) 5 ... e6.
cl) 5 ... d5
This is the pet move ofZvoni-
mir Mestrovic.
6.h3
6 ... 7.e5 ttJe4 8.ttJe2 e6
9.c3 (I can recommend to the
fans of extreme sports 9.ttJf4!?
Pavasovic - Kos, Ljubljana 2000,
when the best answer 9 ...
leads to interesting variations:
10.c3 ttJxc3 11.bxc3 12.
14.
'xa1 f6! fxe5 16.dxe5
0-0 bxc618.'it>g4!?t. De-
spite the original location of
White's king, it seems that the
minor pieces are stronger than
Black's rook with pawns.) 9 ... f6
(after 9 ... 10.gxf3 ttJg5 11.
ttJf4 h6 12.h4 ttJh7 the
activity of White's pieces more
than compensate for his pawn
weaknesses) 10.ttJf4
12.,c2 f5 13.h4 Hagarova
- E.Danielian, Batumi 1999.
7.'xf3 e6
Black tested also 7 ... ttJb4, but
following 8.0-0-0 dxe4 9.ttJxe4
104
CDxe4 (worse is 9 ... ttJxa2+?! 10.
ttJb4 1l.ttJxf6+ exf6 12.
10. 'd5 11.
CDxd5 White obtains a
clear advantage in the ending
due to his bishop pair. He could
increase his edge by gaining
more space: 12 ... e6 13.c4 ttJf6
14.g4 0-0-0 'it>b8 16.g5
ttJd7 17.h4 h6 hxg5 19.
hxg5 Gibney - Payne, Canada
1999.
8.e5 ttJd7 9.0-0-0 ttJe7 10.

Black is lagging behind in
development so he should refrain
from opening up files in the cen-
tre by 10 ... c5 11.dxc5 ttJxe5
ttJ7c6 (or 12 ... ttJ5c6 13.
l:thel) 13.'g3 a6
1l.'g3 c5 12.dxc5 'c7 13.
ttJa4 ttJg6
Dangerous is 13 ... 'xe5 14.
'h5 Iic8 16.ttJb6
'u'xc5 (16 ... CDxb6 17.l:te5 forces
Black to sacrifice the queen:
17 ... 'xd1+! 18.'it>xd1 ttJa4 19.b4!
ttJc6 20.l:tg5! this powerful re-
source keeps White's advantage
20 ... ttJxb4 21.Iixg7) 17.CDxd7
18.l:te5 f5 19.':'xe6.
14.f4 ttJxc5 15.ttJxc5
1.e4 iDc6 2.iDf3 d6 3.d4 iDf6 4.iDc3
ti'xc5 17.h4 Svesh-
nikov - Mestrovic, Nova Gorica
2004. White is exerting strong
pressure on the kingside in a
calm position.
c2) 5 ... e5 6.d5
6 .. iDb8
After 6 ... lbe7 7.h3, White has
a stable space advantage and
therefore he is clearly better. The
following lines confirm that
evaluation:
7 ... ..td7 8.g4!? lbg6 (8 ... h6
9. ti'd2 g5 10.0-0-0;!; Perez Rodri-
guez - Salgado Gonzalez, Vila de
Padron 2000) 9.g5lbg8 10.h4 h6
ll.I:l.g1 a6 12.ti'd2 h5 13 . .ie2
lb6e7 14.0-0-0 g6 15.lbe1 ..tg7
16.f4 iDc8 17.lbd3 exf4 18.iDxf4
ti'e7 19 . ..td4 Jie5 20.a4 21.
ti'e3 22.iDd3 b6 23JIdfll:th7
24 . ..txe5+ dxe5 25.ti'g3+- Cicak
- Kaulfuss, Germany 1995;
7 ... ..txf3 8.ti'xf3 a6 (8 ... h6
9. ti'd1 iDg6 10.g3 ..te7 11. ti'd2 a6
12 . ..td3 ti'd7 13.0-0-0 b5 14.f4
Zatulovskaya - Skegina, Riga
1968; White is also better after:
9.a4 c6 10.a5) 9.0-0-0 iDd7
10.h4 (it is quite effective for
White to continue with: 10.g4
iDg6 ll.g5 Jl..e7 12.h4 0-0 13.
.ih3) 10 ... h5 11.g3 g6 12 . .ih3
.ig7 13. ti'e2 0-0, Hagarova -
Kriz, Slovakia 1996, and now af-
ter the energetic move 14.g4!, he
is clearly better: 14 ... hxg4 15 .
..txg4 f5 16 . ..tf.3.
7.h3..th5
7 ... ..tcS S.a4 g6 9.a5 a6 10 . ..td3
..tg7 11.lbe2 0-0 12.c4 lbe8 13.
g4 Godena - Di Paolo, Genova
1999.
7 ... SLxf.3 S.ti'xf.3 ..te7 9.g4 c6
(9 ... c5?! 10.g5lbfd7 11.h4 Mista
- Janaszak, Zakopane 2001;
9 ... 0-0 10.h4 iDbd7 11.0-0-0 a6
12.iDe2 c6 13.g5 iDeS 14.iDg3 g6
15.dxc6 bxc6 16. ti'g4 iDg7 17.h5
f51S . ..tc4+ d519.l:txd5+- Felgaer
- Liascovich, Ezeiza 2001) 10.0-
0-0 (10.g5 iDfd7 11.I:l.gl) 10 ...
ti'a5 11.g5 lbfd7 12.h4 Bank -
Nielsen, Aarhus 1993.
8.g4 ..tg6 9.lbd2 c6
9 ... ..te7 10.g5 lbh5 (l0 ... lbfd7
ll.h4 f6 12. ti'g4 fxg5 13.hxg5
iDb6 14.0-0-0 c5 15.f4 Fressinet
- Kovarcik, Montlucon 1997) 11.
h4 iDd7? (11...h6 12. ti'g4; 11 ... f6
12.l:tgl) 12 . ..te2 iDf4 13.SLxf4
exf4 14.h5.
105
Chapter 7
the game Nevednichy - Nico-
lescu, Romania 1992, and White
had better play the simple:
10.g5! liJfd7 (It is not any better
for Black to continue with: 10 ...
liJgB 11.h4 h6 12. hxg5 13.
hxg5l::txhl14. liJe7 15.dxc6
bxc6 16.0-0-0; or 10 ... i..h5
11.i..e2 i..xe2 12. liJfd7
13.0-0-0, and Black has man-
aged to exchange the light-
squared bishops indeed, but he
lags in development consider-
ably; 10 ... liJh5 11.h4 i..e7? 12.
i..e2+-; 11. .. h6 12. hxg5
13.hxg5 i..e7 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.
0-0-0 i..xg5 16.liJc4.) 1l.h4 h6
12.gxh6 gxh6 13.h5 i..h7 14.
ttg1. Black does not have a
single piece that can be defined
as reasonably placed. White's
advantage in development is
overwhelming.
c3) 5 ... g6
There arise positions from the
Pirc Defence and Black's devel-
opment of the bishop to the g4-
square is evidently premature.
White can immediately exploit
that with:
6.h3 i..xf3 7. i..g7
106
7 ... e5 B.i..b5 liJd7, Varlotta -
Nazzari, Uruguay 1960, now
White can simplify to a very
favourable endgame by the
strong move 9.i..c4! (9 ... f5?
10.exf5 exd4 11.fxg6 liJde5 12.
i..f7+-) liJxf6 11.dxe5
dxe5 12.0-0-0 White's bishop
pair and better development
doom the opponent to a long un-
pleasant defence;
7 ... liJb4?! B.i..b5+ liJd7 (B ... c6
9.i..a4) 9.i..a4 c6 10.a3 liJa6
11.i..b3. Black is by all means
worse. After 11...e6 12.h4 White
has a strong initiative on the
kingside. Apparently the oppo-
nent was fed up with his position
because he played 11 ... c5?? 12.
Daamen - van der Vliet,
Dieren 1979.
8.0-0-00-0
B ... a6?! - this appears to be a
waste of time since Black can
hardly generate serious threats
on the queenside. 9.g4 liJd7,
Burchardt - Micic, Germany
2003, now White prepares f4 by
10. e6 (more dangerous is
10 ... e5 11.dxe5 i..xe5 12.liJd5;
11...liJdxe5 12.f4 liJd7 13.liJd5)
11.f4 12.d5 C12.e5 is good
too) 12 ... 0-0 14.i..g2
liJb6 15. White has two
bishops, a big advantage in space
and attacking prospects.
B ... e5?! - this dubious move
allows White, who is better
developed and has a bishop
pair, to open up central files.
9.dxe5 liJxe5 10. 11.
i..g5 c6, Bizat - Rowe, Erevan
l.e4'bc6 2.'bf3 d6 3.d4 'bf6 4.'bc3 i.g4 5.Si.e3
1996, 12. t'td2 h6 13.i.e3 i.f8
(Black is on the downgrade, but
14.f4 'bed7 15.'fhd6
just loses a pawn) 14.f4 'bed7
15.i.d4.
8oo.'bd7 9.g4 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5,
Merklinger - Mueller, Germany
1999, It is still not clear where
White's bishop would be needed,
so it is better to delay its deploy-
ment. Instead White can start
immediately active operations on
the kingside. 11. t'tg3'bd4 12.h4
Black is doomed to uneasy de-
fence, for instance 12 ... h5 13.
gxh51hh5 14.'bb5 a6 (14 ... 'bxb5
15.i.xb5 c6 15.'bxd4
exd4 i.xd4 17.lhd4
with a sound extra pawn.
9.g4
White can afford to play ag-
gressively, because of his extra
space and the two-bishop advan-
tage.
9 ... 'bd7
9oo.a5?! - perhaps this move
is aimed at overtaking the initia-
tive, but in fact it is more a weak-
ening. 10.h4 a4, Alfred - Schu-
lien, Ohio 1981, when after 11.g5
'bh5 (l1...'bd7 12.h5--7) 12.a3,
Black has little to oppose to the
gathering attack on the kingside.
9 ... a6 1l.h4 (It is
even stronger for White to con-
tinue with: 11.f4! e5 12.dxe5 dxe5
13.f5, beginning a direct king-
side attack.) 11...e5 12.dxe5 i.xe5
13.'bd5 l::te8 14.g5 'ben Ciocal-
tea - Knaak, Bucharest 1975.
9 ... e510.dxe5l'bxe5 11.t'tg2 a6
(11...I:i.e8 - allows White to start
active operations in the centre,
Pitl - Rogers, Augsburg 2005,
12.f4'bc6 13.e5'bd7 14.i.b5. It
is late for a good advice, for in-
stance 14 ... 'bdb8 15.g5! t;{c8 16.
i.e2 gives White full control over
the centre. That makes it diffi-
cult for Black to parry the immi-
nent attack. At the same time
14 ... dxe5? is even worse: 15.
i.xc6 bc 16. t;{xc6 17.i.c5+-;
Black failed to seize the initia-
tive with the pawn-sacrifice:
11...b5?! c6
14.f4'bed7 15.i.c4 t;{a5 16.i.b3
in the game Filipenko - Scher-
bakov, Cheliabinsk 1991; or
12.ool:rbS?! 13.f4 'bed7 14.e5+-;
13 .. J:txb5 14.'bxb5 'bc4 15.t'te2
'bxb2 17.i.d4+-;
15,..'bxe3 16.t;{xe3 t;{b8 17.
'bc3+- Paal- Ozsvath, Hungary
2003) 12.g5'bh5 13.i.e2 f5 14.f4
'bc6 15.exf5 .l:t.xf5 16.'bd5 'be7
17.i.xh5 gxh5 18. t;{e4 z:.xd5
'bxd5 20. t'txd5+
21.i..d4 c6 22.i..xg7+ 23.
t'te6 t;{eS 24.t;{xd6 1-0 Huebner
- Wockenfuss, Germany 1986.
lO.h4 e5
It is less logical for Black to
play: 10oo.h6, after which in the
107
Chapter 7
game: Perunovic - Lazic, Herceg
Novi 1999, White had an over-
whelming attack: 11. e5
12.dxe5 dxe5 13.tUd5 tUd4 14.g5
c6 15.gxh6 ii.hS 16.h5 'iith7 17.
hxg6+ fxg6 lS.:gl IIgS 19.tUc7
20.ii.xd4 b5 .l:i.af8
22.ii.xd7 23.ii.xe5 24.
ii.xhS 'it>xhS 25J'td6 26.
.l:i.xg6lhg6 28.'lt>b1
29.a3+-.
1l.dxe5
This opening of the d-file is
very attractive for White. He has
the bishop-pair and his queen's
rook has already occupied the d-
file, so opening of the centre is
definitely in White's favour.
In the game Walsh - Larsen,
Munich 1955, which was won by
Black, White here played instead
ll.d5.
1l ... tUcxe5
We will convince you easily
that no matter what Black plays
- his position will remain very
difficult:
1l ... dxe5 12.g5 tUd4
tUc5 14.h5;
1l ... Si.xe5 12.tUd5 tUb6 13.
Si.g7 14.g5 neS 15.h5;
ll ... tUdxe5 tUd7 (12 ...
108
14.h5)
f6 (13 ... Si.f6 14.tUd5; 13 ...
14.h5 15.hxg6 16.
Si.d2) 14.Si.d2 tUb6 15.f4.
12. tUb6
Mter 12 ... tUf6 13.ii.e2
14.f3 15.g5 tUeS (15 ...
16 . .l:i.xh3 tUh5 17.f4 tUc6 lS.tUd5)
16.h5, White has the bishop-pair
and space advantage. He can
easily organize a kingside attack,
so we evaluate his position as
winning; if 12 ... a5, then 13.g5
kte8 14.h5 tUf8 15.f4 tUc6 16.hxg6
hxg6 17.f5, and White has a
checkmating attack.
13.f4 tUec4 (After Black's
other retreats of the knight -
13 ... tUc6, or 13 ... tUed7, White's
simplest reaction is 14.ii.d2,
with a great advantage for him,
because of the bishop-pair, the
lead in development and the ex-
tra space.) 14.Si.xc4 tUxc4 15.
it.d4! Si.xd4 16.IIxd4 (Black's
defence did not become any
easier after the exchange of sev-
eral pieces. White enjoys a space
advantage and he can proceed
with operations in the centre as
well as on the kingside.) 16 ...
tUb6 17.h5 g5 18.e5 (It is
1.e4 tDc6 2.tDj3 d6 3.d4 tDf6 4.tDc3 iJ..g4 S.iJ..e3
not better for Black to play:
lS ... gxf4 19.tDe4 cJthS 20.exd6
cxd6 21..l:i.xd6 fic7 22J:rh6.)
19.exd6 cxd6 20.fid3.
c4) 5 ... a6
That move looks like a loss of
time.
6.h3.ih5
6 ... ..td7?! - a weird move,
which forces Black to "restart"
his king's knight after 7.e5 tDgS
S. Dos Santos - Lins, Bra-
zil199S.
Mter 6 ... .ixf3 7.fixf3 e5 S.
0-0-0 exd4 9 . .ixd4 tDxd4 10.
lhd4 tDd7, White plays the
spectacular move ll.e5!, and
achieves a slight, but long-last-
ing advantage: 1l ... dxe5 12 . .ic4
13 . .:!.d2 0-0-0 14.tDe4
lS . .tthd1 tDb6 16 . ..txf7 .id6 17.
fif5+ 'itbS 18.fig5 fixg5 19.tDxg5
h6 20.tDe4t Donev - Thoma,
Goetzis 1997.
White has no problems to ob-
tain an advantage after Black
plays 6 ... .ic8. In the game Fer-
nando - Padeiro, Bobadela 2002,
after 7.fid2 g6 8.0-0-0, White
controls the centre completely
and can patiently organize a
kings ide attack.
7.d5.ixf3
Black prefers to exchange his
bishop immediately, instead of
isolating it from the actions in
the game.
Mter 7 ... tDbS, White can cre-
ate great problems for Black with
the energetic move 8.g4!?, which
restricts his opponent's bishop:
8 ... .ig6 9.tDd2!? eS 10.de fe 11.gS
tDfd7 13.0-0-0 tDc6
14.f4.
The retreat of the knight
in the centre does not look
promising for Black at all: 7 ...
tDeS 8.g4! ..tg6 9.tDd2 h6 10.
f4 tDed7 11..ig2 (It also looks
good for White to continue with:
11.f5!? ..th7 12. fie2 g6 13.0-0-0
..tg7 14.tDf3, and Black's bishop
on h7 is a sorry sight.) 11...e6
12.f5 exfS 13.exf5 fie7 14. fie2
..Ith715.0-0-0 0-0-016 . .i:i.de1 g6
17.fxg6 ..txg6 18. tDeS 19.
fid4 b6 20. Erendzhenov -
Azahari, Elista 1998.
8.gxf3!
White exerts such powerful
pressure after that unexpected
capture, that presently nobody
has tried to find any improve-
109
Chapter 7
ment for Black at all in that
position.
8 ... ctJb8 9.f4 c6 10 . .i.g2 'ffic7
11.ti'd4!
This centralization is quite
logical. White exploits his advan-
tage in space and development
and prepares opening of the
game.
1l ... cxdS 12.ctJxdS! tbxdS
13.exdS tbd7 14.c4 ctJf6
Otherwise, it is not quite clear
how Black can develop his king-
side.
1SJ:tc1! g6 16.cS dxcS 17.
l:xcS ti'd618.ti'a4+ ctJd7 (Black
does not fare any better after:
lB ... ti'd7 19. ti'c4) 19.1:c6! ti'b8
(White's attack is very danger-
ous too after: 19 ... bxc6 20.dxc6
]:IcB 21. 'ffixa6!) 20 . .l:tb6 'ffic8
21.0-0 .u.b8 22.llc1 ti'd8 23.d6
.i.g7 24.nxb7 llxb7 2S.i..xb7
1-0 Onischuk - Miles, Wijk aan
Zee 1996. Black failed altogether
to bring his king to safety in that
game.
cS) S ... e6 6.h3 .i.hS
White's attack develops much
simpler after: 6 ... .i.xf3 7. ti'xf3,
for example: 7 ... .i.e7 (7 ... d5 B.e5
110
tbd7 9.0-0-0 - see line c1) B.
0-0-0 0-0 9.g4 tbd7 10.h4 e5
l1.dxe5 tbdxe5 12.ti'g3 tba5 13.
f4 Vasta - Scalise, Mar del Plata
2002.
7.dS
7 .. exdS
7 ... Sl.xf3 B.ti'xf3 tbe5 (B ... exd5
- see 7 ... exd5) 9.ti'e2 c6 (9 ... ti'd7
10.0-0-0 exd5 1l.exd5 i.e7 12.f4
tbg6 13.g4 Brustkern - Prze-
woznik, Germany 2002) 10.f4
tbed7 11.0-0-0 'ffia5, Vehi Bach
- Gonzalez Maza, Catalunya
1996, when 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.g4 b5
14.a3 b4 15.axb4 ti'xb4 16. 'ffic4
leads to a big advantage in the
endgame.
7 ... tbbB B.dxe6 fxe6 9.i.c4 c6
(9 ... ti'e7 10.g4 i.g6 1l.tbg5 e5
(1l ... c6 12.tbxe6 tbxe4 13.'ffid4)
12.ctJd5 tbxd5 13.exd5) 10.i.xe6
'ffie7 1l.i.b3 tbbd7 (dangerous is
1l ... tbxe4 12.tbxe4 ti'xe4 13.g4
Sl.g6 14.0-0) 12.0-0 Hallier -
Michel, corr. 2001.
7 ... tbe5 B.g4 tbxf3+ (Following
B ... i.g6 9.tbxe5 dxe5 10.i.b5+
tbd7 1l.dxe6 fxe6 12.i..g5 i.e7
13.i.xe7 'ffixe7 14.ti'xd7+ ti'xd7
15.Sl.xd7 + Wxd7, Graziano - Jeff,
IECG 1997, the knight is clearly
1.e4l'Dc6 2.l'Df3 d6 3.d4l'Df6 4.l'Dc3
better than the bishop which is
boxed in by the pawns. White
normally should try to create
weaknesses on the kingside by
16.h4 h5 17 . .i:tg1
We7 19.9xh5 i.xh5 20 . .i:td3.)
i.g6 10.0-0-0 i.e7 (10 ...
e5, Charlton - Mathers, Halifax
1999, 11.h4 h6 12.h5 i.h7 13.g5
hxg5 14.i.xg5 i.e7 15.h6; or
11...h5 12.g5 l'Dd7 13.i.h3;
12 ... l'Dg4 13.i.b5+ We7 14.i.d2)
11.dxe6 fxe6 12.e5 l'Dd7 13.exd6
cxd6 14.i.d4 e5 15.i.e3 the gap-
ing light squares in the centre
and clumsy dark-squared bishop
provide White with lasting pres-
sure, especially ifhe manages to
swap light-squared bishops,
Rahal - Fernandez Montero,
Sanlucar 200l.
If Black plays 7 ... l'De7 imme-
diately, then after: S.i.b5+ c6
(S ... l'Dd7?! 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.i..c4
i.xf3 11.i.c4 i.xf3 12.gxf3! e5
13.f4) 9.dxc6, he has two moves
at his disposal: 9 ... l'Dxc6 and
9 ... bxc6.
In case of9 ... l'Dxc6 10.e5 dxe5,
and here White must continue
with: with the follow-
ing lines as an example: 11...
WxdS, Rittner - Zavanelli, corr.
2000 (ll..JhdS 12.l'Dxe5 lIcS
13.i.xa7 i.b4 14.i.d4 0-0 15.
i.xc6 bxc6 16.l'Dd3 l'Dd5 17.a3;!;)
12.0-0-0+ Wc7 13.g4 i.g6 14.
i.xc6 bxc6 15.l'Dxe5 i.d6 (15 ...
l'Dd5 16.l'Dxd5+ cxd5 17.c4;;;
16 ... exd5 17.c4;!;) 16.l'Dc4 i.b4
17.l'Da4 i.e4 lS.i.f4+ WcS 19.
lIhg1l'Dd5 20.i.d6 i.g6 (20 ... i.f3
2l.l:i.d4 f6 23.l'Dd2
l'Dxa2+ 24.'it>bl) 21.l'Dc5 l:tdS
22.a3;;.
White's task is even simpler
after: 9 ... bxc6 11.
ti'e2l'Dd7 12.g4 i.g6 13.0-0-0 e5
(Black has a wide range of op-
tions, but the bad news is that
none ofthem could save the day:
13 ... d5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.l'Dxd5
exd5 16.:txd5+-; 13 ... 0-0-0 14.
ti'a6+ 15Jhd6 ti'xd6 16.
l'Db5!+-; 13 ... l'Db6 - the most re-
silient. 14.i.xb6! ab 15.l'Db5+-;
14 ... 15.l:i.xd6l:i.bS
14.l'Dh4 l'DcS (14 ... :bS 15.l'Dxg6
hxg6 15.ti'c4 l'Dc5 16.
i.xc5 dxc5 17.ti'd5+- Apicella-
David, Linares 1995.
8.exd5
In this position Black's major
options are: c5a) 8 ... i.x-rJ and
c5b) 8 ... l'De5.
White is on top after S ... l'DbS
9.g4 i.g6 10.ti'e2! i.e7 11.ti'b5+
l'Dbd7 12. ti'xb7 .ti.bS 13. ti'xa7
lixb2 14.l'Dd4 0-0 15.0-0-0 ti'bS
16.ti'a3 lib6 17 . .tb5 Palac -
Muse, Tucepi 1996. He has won
a pawn and dominates over the
weakened light squares.
After S ... l'De7 9.g4 Cacho
111
Chapter 7
Reigadas - Rossi, Arco 199B,
White can gain the bishop pair
advantage. Combined with more
space, that guarantees him a
lasting initiative. 10.CDh4 c6
(10 ... CDfxd5?! l1.CDxd5 iLe4 12.
CDxe7 iLxhl13.CDef5 g6 14.CDg3)
11.CDxg6 hxg6 (1l ... CDxg6 12.g5
CDd7 i.e7 14.h4) 12.dxc6
bxc6 13.iLg2.
c5a) 8 9. CDe5
Dubious is 9 ... CDbB? 10.0-0-0
iLe7 11.g4 0-0 12.g5 CDfd7, Frie-
drich - Tomescu, Porto San
Giorgio 2004. Now White can
prepare an extremely dangerous
attack by natural moves: 13.h4!
CDe5 (13 ... 1:teB
i:teB (or 14 ... f5 15.CDe2! c5 16.CDf4
17.'it>bl) 15.f4-7.

10 ... a6
This is the most frequent
move although there are also
other alternatives:
10 .. 11.0-0-0 g6
0-0-0 13.iLxa7 14.i.e3
with a healthy extra pawn,
Longares - Cabrera Moreno,
Zaragoza 1997;
10 ... c6 11.f4 CDed7, Kul -
112
Porrasmaa, Rethymnon 2003,
when simplest is 12.0-0-0 iLe7
13.g4 0-0 Without dis-
tracting himself on pawns, White
finished development and is go-
ing to start an attack against the
enemy's king;
10 ... CDfd7 11.0-0-0 iLe7 12.f4
CDg6 13.g4 0-0 14.g5 lleB 15.h4
Black's pieces are cramped on
the last two ranks. That makes
his defence very difficult, Vuja-
dinovic - Certic, Tivat 1995;
10 ... 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.f4
CDed7 13.g4 CDc5 (also
possible is a5 15.g5
CDfd7 16.h4 IteB 17. l':tbB
1B.CDe2.ifB 19.CDg3 c6 20.iLd4+-
Etchegaray - Hasangatin, Cap-
pelle la Grande 2003; another
good alternative is 14.iLd4 IteB
15.g5 iLfB CDfe4? - 16 ...
CDfd7 was better, but Black is
struggling anyway, 17 .CDxe4
CDxe4 1B . .ib5! l':te7 a6
20.iLd3 Apicella - Porra-
smaa, Chalkidiki 2002, when
White had a forced win by 21.
iLf6! CDc5 22.iLxe7+-; 21...CDxf6
22.gxf6 J:i.e3 23.fxg7 .l:i.xf3? 24.
iLxh7+ 26.
23 ... .txg7 24.
25. .l:i.xd3 26.J:i.xd3+-) 14 ... a6
15.g5 CDfd7?? Bobras - Minasian,
Warsaw 2005, this is a blunder,
but 15 ... ttJeB 16.h4-7 was difficult
for Black too. In the game after
16.b4 Black could have resigned
right away since he would have
lost a piece.
11.0-0-0 .ie7
1l ...
1.e4 tiJc6 2.!1J{3 d6 3.d4 0Jf6 4.0Jc3 i.g4 5.i..e3
12.f4!? !1Jg6
White's attack develops eas-
ily after: 12 ... 0Jed713.g4 0-0
(13 ... g6 14.h4 b5 15.i.d4 0-0
16.h5 b4 17.hxg6 bxc3 18.gxh7+
19.95 cxb2+ 20.'it>b1 :l:Ie8
21.i.h3 i.f8 Hoffman
- Fiorito, Villa Martelli 1996)
14J:tg1 b5 16.g5 0Jfd7
17 .tDe2 18.0Jd4 i.f8 19.0Jc6
20.h4 0Jb6 21.i.h3
22.g6 D.Schneider - Bachman,
Botucatu 2003
13.g40Jd7
13 ... 0-0 14.g5 tDd7 - see 13 ...
0Jd7.
14.g50-0
14 ... h6? - this dooms Black's
king to a long suffering - prepar-
ing a queenside castling is a long
work, but in the centre or on the
other side it is an easy target.
15.gxh6 gxh6 16.0Je4liJf6, Servat
- A.Bermejo, Buenos Aires 1997,
17.i.d4! liJxe4 (17 ... 0-0 18 .
18. .i:r.g8
15.h4 (15 ... c6 is even
worse, in view of 16.h5 liJh8
17.i.g2+-, when Black's pieces
are amazingly helpless. White
has more than one way to win
the game, Elburg - Schaar,
Email 1998) 16.h5 Golubev -
Markowski, Biel 1995.
c5b) 8 ... 0Je5 9.g4
9 ... i.g6
Mter 9 ... liJxf3+ 10. i.g6
11.0-0-0, Black lags in develop-
ment considerably and his light-
squared bishop is endangered to
be trapped, or isolated from the
actions. His defence is very dif-
ficult and we will illustrate that
with some lines:
1L.liJd7 12. i.e7 13.f4 f5,
Fox - Olsson, Dublin 1998, White
forced the opponent into weak-
ening squares along the e-file. e6
is especially appealing, so: 14.
tDb5 0-0 15.0Jd4;
11 ... a6 12.i.d4 (White can
achieve a big advantage in an-
other fashion too: 12.h4 h5 13.g5
0Jg4 14.i.d4lDe5 i.e7 16.
f4 liJg4 17.i.xg7 .l::i.g8 18.i.d4+-
Prudnikova - Micic, Plovdiv
2003.) 12 ... i.e7 13. 0-0 14.f4
h6 15.f5 i.h7 17.'it>b1
liJd7 18.liJe4+- Spraggett - Mohr,
Ubeda 1996;
1L.i.e7 liJd7 (Black
does not solve his problems with
12 ... h5 either. Mter 13.f4 tDd7
113
Chapter 7
14.i.b5 a615.i.xd7+ 16.f5
i..h7 0-0 i.f6
19.i.d4 i.xd4 20Jhd4+- Dge-
buadze - Slisser, Dieren 2002,
the position of the black bishop
on h7 is pathetic.) 13.f4 f5 (13 ... f6
14.h4 a6 15.h5 i.f7 16.i..e2 ttJc5
17.g5+- Black's pieces are very
passive, his king has stuck in the
centre, Moreno Carnero - S.San-
chez, Ayamonte 2002; 13 ... h6
14.i.d40-0 15.h4 G.Mohr
- Cander, Bled 2000, when White
could have gained a decisive ad-
vantage by the enterprising
move 16.g5! hxg5 17.f5 i.h5
IS.11xh4 i.xdI19.ttJxdl +-; Black
is beyond salvation also after
15 ... i.f6 16.i.xf6
l:lfeS IS.g5 19.i.b5 a6 20.
+-) 14.g5 (It looks attractive
for White to play here 14.ttJb5,
with the idea to penetrate as
quickly as possible with the
knight to the weakened e6-
square, for example: 14 ... i.f6
15.g5, or 14 ... fxg4 15.hxg4 0-0
16.f5 i.e817.t,'th3 h6 IS.ttJd4+-)
14 ... 0-0 15. I:tcS 16.h4 a6 17.
h5+- Kovacevic - Kostic, Bela
Crkva 1990.
lO.i.b5+ ttJed7
In answer to 1O ... ttJfd7 Il.ttJd4
a6, White can play the powerful
move: 12 . .if1!, and Black is faced
with problems that he can hardly
ever solve, for example:
12 ... t,'th4 13. t,'td2 i.e7 (Black
loses immediately after: 13 ...
ct:Jxg4 14.i.g5 t,'th5 15 . ..l1i.e2+-)
14.0-0-0 CDxg4 (White is totally
winning too, after: 14 ... c5 15.
114
dxc6 bxc6 16.f4 ttJxg4 17.hxg4
t,'txhl IS.i.g2+-) 15.hxg4 t,'txhl
16.f4 h6 (Black is not out of the
woods either after: 16 ... h5 17.
17 .i.g2 IS.l:lhl t,'tg3
19.i.f3 0-0-0 20.CDce2 1-0 Landa
- Summerscale, Ubeda 1999;
or 12 ... c5 13.dxc6 ttJxc6 14.
.l:i.cS 15.0-0 Roser - Strop-
pa, France 1998. White is clearly
better, because his light-squared
bishop is much better than its
black counterpart, meanwhile
Black's d6-pawn is extremely
weak.
i.e7
It is not any better for Black
to play: 1l ... a6 13.
0-0-0 0-0-0 14.l:lhel ttJc5 15.
t,'tc4 ttJxa4 (15 ... b5 16.ttJxb5 axb5
IS.i.a6+ ttJxa6 19.
t,'txa6+ 20.l:ld3) 16.t,'txa4
CDe4 f6 IS.ct:Jxe4 fxg5 19.
ttJfxg5 20.t,'td4 c5 21.dxc6
t,'txc6 22 . .l::i.e3 23J:k3 24.
ct:Jc5 25.ct:Jxa6+ 1-0 Klovans
- Graf, Sverdlovsk 19S7.
The game V.L.Ivanov - N este-
rov, Moscow 1995 reached this
position. White has a great spa-
tial advantage, moreover the
only open file, where is Black's
1.e4 CDc6 2.CDf3 d6 3.d4 CDf6 4.CDc3 JLg4 5 . .Yt.e3
king, is in his possession too.
Evidently Black will hardly suc-
ceed in sheltering his king on the
queenside because that requires
too much time. Therefore White
can boldly advance with his
pawns on the kingside, threaten-
ing to win the light-squared
bishop on the way. 12.h4!? h5
(12 ... h6 13.h5 i.h7 14.g5 hxg5
15.CDxg5 J.g6 16.0-0-0; 12 ...
CDxg4 13.h5 J.f5 14.CDd4 CDxe3
g6 16.CDxf5 gxf5 17.
O-O-O+-; 12 ... a613.J.xd7+ 'i;'fxd7
14.h5 J.e4 15.CDxe4 CDxe4 16.J.d4
17 'i;'ff4 18.h6 0-0-0
19.hxg7 .l:.he8 13.g5
ttJg4 14.0-0-0. Black's position
is very difficult to defend and it
is quite hard for him to find any
acceptable plan, for example:
14 ... ttJxe3 (14 ... 0-0 15.J.d4)
15.'i;'fxe3 0-0 16J:the1 l:te8 17.
ttJd4, and despite the fact that
Black has the two-bishop advan-
tage his position is dubious. His
dark-squared bishop is bad, his
position is quite cramped and he
can easily become a victim of a
crushing kingside attack.
Conclusion
We have analysed the most popular lines of the 1 ... ttJc6-system in
this chapter. Black's position seems to be quite solid in the main line,
nevertheless his defence is very difficult. The main idea of the whole
variation - to exert pressure against the d4-pawn with the help of
the moves ttJc6 and J.g4 requires a long, patient and meticulous
preparation. White occupies the centre and has a lead in develop-
ment as well as often the bishop-pair too. Small wonder that Black's
position is very difficult after that ...
115
Part 3
Alekhine's Defence
l.e4 liJf6 2.e5
The other early development
of a black knight - 1...lLlf6 (Ale-
khine's Defence) is sounder
strategically (Black attacks
the e4-pawn) and accordingly it
is more popular. It is quite
enough to assert that plenty
of great chess-masters have
played like that, for example:
Robert Fischer, Vassily Ivan-
chuk, Michael Adams, Nigel
Short etc ...
This opening had been men-
tioned for the first time at the
dawn of the 19
th
century, never-
theless it began to be analyzed
seriously only after Alekhine in-
troduced it into the tournament
practice at the beginning of the
20
th
century. In fact he (Alekhine)
was the first to grasp the essence
of the real spirit of that opening
116
and he managed to score some
especially instructive and im-
pressive wins.
Presently, that opening is
typical with the following strat-
egy employed by Black: he usu-
ally provokes the advance of
White's pawn-centre and creates
the impression that White has
achieved a lot. Later however,
Black can easily undermine
White's pawn-centre with the
move d7-d6.
The strange looking retreat of
the knight - l.e4 lLlf6 2.e5 liJg8
(Chapter 8) just loses time and
the possibility for Black to attack
White's advanced pawns does
not justify the wasted tempi.
Naturally, Black should re-
treat his knight to the centre
(2 ... liJd5) and after the almost
obligatory moves 3.d4 d6, I rec-
ommend to White to follow with
4.liJf3. This move leads to the
contemporary system (The Mod-
ern Variation) and it is definitely
the best for White. He is not in a
hurry to repel Black's knight
away from the centre with the
move c2-c4 and he completes his
development first, fortifying the
e5-outpost in the process.
Following that, Black has sev-
eral possibilities at his disposal,
but they are not all so compa-
rable in value:
for example the line: 4 ... lDc6
5.c4 lDb6 6.e6!? (Chapter 10)
leads to a very sharp opening
battle with an initiative for
White;
after 4 .. dxe5 5.lDxe5 (Chap-
ter 11), Black should better play
5 ... c6, or 5 .. g6, while the move
5 . lDd 7, practically loses the
game by force after 6.lDxf7! and
I prove that convincingly in this
book;
it is possible for Black to con-
tinue with 4 g6 (Chapter 12) -
some very strong players like to
play that line, for example:
grandmasters Vladimir Akopian,
Lev Alburt, Rafael Vaganian,
Jan Timman ... ;
and finally - Black's main
defensive weapon is the move
4 ... i.g4. Following 5 . .te2, he can
try three more or less equally
sensible continuations: 5 ... lDc6
(Chapter 13), 5 ... c6 (Chapter 14)
and 5 .. e6 (Chapter 15).
117
Chapter 8 l.e4 l2Jf6 2.e5
2 ... lDg8
This extravagant move is only
very seldom played by Black. It
does not lose immediately in-
deed, but still the waste of sev-
eral tempi by Black is bound to
tell in the future.
Black's strongest and most
natural move 2 . lDd5 will be
analysed in the next chapters.
In case of: 2 ... lDe4?! 3.d3 lDc5
4.d4lDe6 (or 4 ... lDa4 5 . .i.b5 ttJb6
6.e6 fxe6 7."h5+ g6 B."e5 l:igB
9. "xe6 !%.g7 10. "e2 c6 11..i.d3 d6
12.lDc3 ltf7 13.h4 .i.g7 14.h5)
5.f4, White's space advantage is
overwhelming. After: 5 ... g6 6.d5
N c5 (It is not any better for Black
to play: 6"'ttJg7 7.lDc3 d6 B'ttJf3
.i.g4 9.h3 i.xf3 10. "xf3 c6 11.
~ e 3 dxe5 12.0-0-0 "cB 13.fxe5
ttJf5 14 . .i.f4.) 7.i.e3 d6 B . .i.d4 f6,
11B
and in the game: Moroz - Vavra,
Pardubice 199B, White could
have achieved an almost winning
position by playing: 9.e6 .i.h6
10.ttJh3 0-0 11.c4 c6 12.lDc3 "b6
(12 ... b6 13.f5) 13. "d2 "a5
14.0-0-0 ttJba6 15.<it>b1 b6 16.g4
cxd5 17.cxd5 .ib7 1B.g5 .i.g7
19.f5.
3.d4 d6
3 . c6?! - this waiting move is
played in a situation in which
time is very precious: 4 . .i.d3 d6
(in the line: 4 ... d5, A.Horvath -
Lotharides, Slovakia 2001, 5'ttJc3
g6 6.h3 .ig7 7'ttJf3 .i.f5 B . .i.xf5
gxf5 9.e6 fxe6 10.lDg5, Black is
also in trouble. It is probably best
for him to try: 5 ... e6, with the
idea to transfer to some set-ups
typical for the French Defence,
but having already lost three
tempi in the process ... ) 5'ttJc3 g6
(5 ... e6 6.ttJf3 ttJd7 7.0-0 dxe5
B'ttJxe5lDxe5 9.dxe5 "d4 10 . .l:r.e1
.ic5 11."f3 ttJe7 12. "g3lDg6 13.
.ie3 "b4 14.a3+-) 6.lDf3 .ig4 7.
h3 .ixf3 B."xf3 dxe5 9.dxe5 .ig7
10 . .ic4 e6 11 . .if4 "a5 (11"'ttJd7
12.0-0-0 "bB 13.lDe4 .i.xe5 14.
lDd6+ .ixd6 15 . .i.xd6 "dB 16.
l:the1 17.'it>b1 ltJgf6 lB.
..txe6 fxe6 19J:txe6+ <i;f7 20 . .l::.e7 +
<i;gB 21. ltJd5 22. l:txd7 b6
23. 24. gxf5 25 .
..te5+-) 12.0-0-0 ..txe5 13. ltJe4
ltJd7 14JIxd7 15 . .ixe5
and White wins.
3 ... c5?! - this activity is
rather premature and not justi-
fied at all. 4.dxc5 5.ltJc3
6.ltJf3 e6 (6 ... d6 7.exd6
B. exd6 9.ltJd5 <i;dS
10 . ..tf4) 7 . ..td3 a6 8.0-0 9.
ltJe4 f5. This is how the game
Kokkila - Kauma, Vantaa 1997
developed. White could have
achieved an overwhelming ad-
vantage here opening the posi-
tion with: 10.exffi gxf6 (10 ... ltJxf6
l1.ltJfg5 ltJxe4 12 . .ixe4 g6 13.
e5 14. d6 15 . ..txg6+
hxg6 'it>d7
1l.ltJfg5! fxg5 (11...h5 12.ltJd6+
..txd613 . ..tg6+ 'it>f814.ltJf7+-) 12.
ltJe7 14.i.f4
15 . ..txbBlhbB 16.
3 ... ltJc6 4.ltJf3 d5 5.c4 .ig4 (in
case of 5 ... e6 6.c5, the game
transposes to the line 3 ... e6)
6.cxd5. In the variation: 6 ... i..xf3
ltJxd4 c5
cxd4 10.i..b5+ 11.i..xd7+
<i;xd 7, Black's position is very
difficult after: 12.'it>e2 e6 (12 ...
f6 13.f4 ltJh6 14.'it>d3 ltJf5 15.g4
ltJh6 16.h3.) 13.d6 f6 14.f4
fxe5 15.fxe5 'it>c6 16.'it>d3 <i;d5
17.lIe1 g6 .ih6 19.1tJd2
l:tcB 20.ttJf3+-. It is only slightly
better for Black to try: 6 ...
7. ttJc3 a5 (7 ... i..xf3 B .ltJxd5
..l.xd19.ttJxc7+ ..l.g4
1.e4 ltJf6 2.e5 CiJg83.d4
1l . ..te3 12.d5 ltJb4 13.l:tc1+
'it>bS 14.ltJc7 ltJxa2 15.l:tc4+-.)
B . .ib5 e6 9.h3 ..txf3 10.
ltJge7 1l . ..tg5 a6 12.i..a4 ttJd5
13.0-0.
3 ... e6 - This move is much
more flexible than the moves
that we have analysed until now.
4.ltJf3
Black has a choice:
4 ... c5 - is not satisfactory for
Black at all. The simple 5.d5 d6
6.ltJc3, creates great problems for
him, for example: 6 ... ltJe7 (Black
loses too after: 6 ... a6 7.i..c4 b5
B.dxe6! bxc4 9.exf7+ 'it>xf7 10.
7.i..b5+ i..d7 S.dxe6+-.
After 4 ... d6 5.ltJc3 dxe5 6.
ltJxe5ltJd7 we reach
by transposition the game Spiel-
mann - Flohr, Prague 1930, that
will be analysed in the line:
3 ... d6 4.ltJf3 dxe5;
It is more promising for Black
to follow with: 4 ... d5 5.c4 ttJc6 (in
case of 5 ... dxc4 6 . .txc4, there is
another possible transposition -
to the line 3 ... d5 4.c4 dxc4 5.
Ji.xc4 e6). White restricts the
mobility of Black's bishops. M-
ter: 6.c5!? .id7 7.a3 ttJge7 (or
7 ... b6 B.b4 bxc5 9.dxc5 f6 10.
119
Chapter 8
.1i.d3) 8.b4 a6 9 . .1i.d3 CDf5 10.
i.xf5 exf5 l1.CDc3 .ie6 12 . .1i.g5
.1i.e7 13 . .ixe7 '!lixe7 14.0-0 0-0
15.'!lid2 f6 16.exf6 '!lixf6 17.'!lif4
J:::tac8 White's positional
advantage is quite stable. He
controls the open file and has a
powerful outpost on the e5-
square; moreover his knight is
obviously stronger than Black's
"bad" bishop.
It is interesting for Black to
follow with: 4 ... b6 5.c4 .ib7, in
order to try to exploit the weak-
ening of the light squares in the
centre. Mter 6.CDc3, Black has
two possibilities. In case of6 ... d5
7.cxd5, Black is forced to ex-
change the important light-
squared bishop. Mter: 7 ... .txd5
(or 7 ... exd5 8 . .id3CDe7 9 . .tg5 h6
10 . .th4 a6 ll.e6 '!lid6 12.exf7+
Wxf7 13.ltJe5+ ..t?g8 14.'!lih5 '!lie6
15.CDe2 g5 16 . .ig3+- Slibar -
Rabic, Slovenia 1991) 8.ltJxd5
'!lixd5 9 . .id3 .ib4+ 10.We2!? CDc6
ll.a3 .ie7 12 . .ie3, White's posi-
tion is clearly preferable. He can
exert strong pressure on the c-
file and Black has problems to
complete his development. It is
better for Black to try: 6 ... .tb4,
continuing the fight for the light
squares. In the line: 7 . .td2ltJe7
8.i.d3 d5 (8 ... ltJf5 9.i.xf5 exf5
10.0-0 0-0 1l.ltJd5 .txd2 12.
'!lixd2 d6 13JIadl) 9.cxd5 .txc3
10.bxc3 '!lixd5 11.0-0 c5t, Black
can still defend, although White
still maintains his initiative;
The position is very interest-
ing after: 3 ... d5 4.c4:
120
About 4 ... ltJc6 5.CDf3 - see 3 ... CDc6
4.ltJf3 d5 5.c4; while about 4 ... e6
5.ltJf3 dxc4 6 . .txc4 - see 4 ... dxc4
5.i.xc4 e6 6.CDf3;
In case of: 4 ... dxc4 5.i.xc4 e6
6.CDf3 ltJe7, Rogic - Loncar,
Slavonski Brod 1995 (6 ... ltJd7
7.ltJc3CDb6 8 . .id3), the best for
White is to play: 7.CDc3, and af-
ter 7 ... .td7 (or 7 ... CDd5 8 . .txd5
exd5 9 . .tg5) 8.0-0 .ic6, he can
follow with 9.ltJg5. In the varia-
tion: 9 ... h6 10.'!lih5 g6 l1.'!lih3
'!lixd4 12.CDxf7 '!lixc4 13.ltJxh8
.ig7 14.lbxg6CDxg6 15.b3 '!lic5 16.
'!lixe6+ ltJe7 17 . .ixh6 i.xh6 18.
'!lixh6, White has a winning po-
sition, because 18 ... '!lixc3 does
not work for Black, because of:
19.'!lih8+ 20.e6+.
4 ... .te6 - is just another at-
tempt by Black to hold the cen-
tre. Still in answer to 5.ltJc3,
Black must play 5 ... c6, so that his
previous move does not seem to
be so effective anymore. (5 ... ltJc6
6.CDf3 g6 7.tLlg5 tLlh6 8.tLlxe6 fxe6
9.cxd5 exd5 10 . .tb5). The game
Cladouras - Steinbacher, Ger-
many 1990, followed with 6.cxd5
.txd5 7.tLlxd5 '!lixd5 8.CDe2 e6
9.tLlc3 .tb4 10.'!lig4 tLle7 11..td2
.txc3 12.bxc3.
It is simpler for Black to play
4 ... c6 immediately, although
even then it is not quite clear
how he should continue later.
5.lt:lc3. The immediate surrender
of the centre by Black with:
5 ... dxc4 (it is too bad for Black to
play 5 ... i.f5, because of 6.
while 5 ... g6 is not solving his
problems either. After 6.ttJf3,
it is not evident how Black
should continue with his devel-
opment, while the active move
6 ... f6 can only cause new difficul-
ties for him: 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.i.b5+
i.d7 9. Black is already be-
yond salvation, for example:
9 ... 10.i.d2 i.xb5 11.ttJxb5
12. exf6 ttJxf6 13.i.f4+-) pre-
sents White with clearly better
chances: 6.i.xc4 e6 7.ttJf3 ttJd7
8.0-0 ttJb6 9.i.b3 ttJe7?! (9 ... h6
10.ttJe4 ttJd5 b6 12J1c1
i.b7;l;;) 10.ttJe4 ttJed5 1I.i.g5
12.z:tc1 h6 13.i.h4 i.d7 (13 ... i.e7
14.i.xe7 15.
14.a3 g5 15.i.g3 i.e7 16.ttJd6+
i.xd6 17.exd6 18.ttJe5
Lange - Naumann, Ruhrgebiet
1996;
There is another line for
Black that enables him to hold
the centre, but still his position
remains too cramped and pas-
sive. Mter: 5 ... e6 6.lbf3 ttJe7 7.a3
b6 (7 ... ttJf5 8.c5 b6 9.b4;t) 8.b3
dxc4 (It deserves some attention
for Black to follow with: 8 ... i.a6
9.i.d3 ttJd7 10.i.e3 h6 11.0-0
ttJf5;t) 9.bxc4 ttJf5 10.i.g5 i.e7
(10 ... 11.g4 ttJe7 12.ttJe4 ttJg6
13.h4 h6 14.i.e3 i.e7 15.h5 ttJf8
1.e4 Ci'Jf6 2.e5 tlJg8 3.d4
16.i.e2;t; 10 ... f6 1l.exf6 gxf6
12.ttJe5!? h5 13.tLlg6 14.Ci'Jxf8
'iit'xf8 15.i.e3) 1l.i.xe7
12.i.d3 0-0 and White's
advantage is considerable;
It seems a bit interesting, but
hardly quite correct for Black to
play: 4 ... c5?! 5.dxc5 d4!?, in the
spirit of the Albin Counter Gam-
bit. (It is worse for Black to play:
5 ...
or 5 ... e6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.i.e3) 6.a3
tLlc6 (6 ... e6 7.b4 a5 8.i.b2 axb4
9.axb4 Ilxa1 10.i.xa1 Ci'Jc6 1I.
7.i.f4 a5 8.Ci'Jd2. White's
position is clearly preferable, but
still the situation on the board
remains tense. Now in case of:
S ... i.f5 9.g4 i.g6
1I.i.g21:tcS (11...tLlxe5?
tLlxd7 13.i.xb7 :a7 14.c6 e5
15.cxd7+ 16.i.xe5 l:!xb7
17.i.xd4+-) 12.i.xc6 13.
bxc6 14.tLlgf3 d3 15.h4
h5 16.e6, White has a huge ad-
vantage. It is only slightly bet-
ter for Black to play: S ... a4 9.
tLlgf3 e6 10.tLle4 i.xc5 1l.ttJxc5
12. 13.0-0-0
tLlge7 14.ttJxd4 and Black loses
after: 14 ... ttJxe5? 15.tLlb3
16.c5+-.
4.tLlrJ
121
Chapter 8
4 ...
The move 4 ... dxe5, leads to
seemingly simple positions, but
Black is not out ofthe woods yet.
(4 ... h6 5.t'bc3 g5 6.h3
t'bc6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.d5t Unzicker
- Bricard, Wildbad 1990.) 5.t'bxe5
t'bd7 t'bgf6 (6 ... t'bxe5 7.dxe5
c6 8.t'bc3 9 . .ll.f4) 7.t'bc3 e6
c6 (It is slightly better for
Black to follow with: 8 ... h6
9.t'bxd7 hxg5 10.t'bxf8 '>itxf8 11.
O-O-Ot.) 9.0-0-0 .ll.e7 10 . .ll.d3
t'bxe5 1l.dxe5 t'bd7 (11...t'bd5?
12 . .ll.xe7 13.t'be4 0-0 14.c4
t'bb4 15.t'bf6+-) 12 . .ll.xe7
13. 0-0 14.t'be4 b6 15.f4
Spielmann - Flohr, Prague 1930.
It is quite insufficient for
Black to continue with: 4 ... t'bc6.
The line: 5 . .ll.b5 (5 ... d5 6.c4
7.cxd5 t'bxe5 8.t'bxe5
a6 10.a4
6.t'bc3, creates great problems for
Black. 6 ... dxe5 (It is slight bet-
ter for Black to play: 6 ... a6 7.
8.d5 .i.d7 9.0-0 .i.g4
10 . .i.f4t.) 7.d5! Now in the line:
7 ... t'bb4 9.a3 e4!?
(9 ... t'ba6 10.t'bxe5 11.
0-0-0 12.g4
14.t'bxf7 16.
t'bxh8+-) 10.t'be5 1l.t'bxf7
Wxf7 (11...t'bxc2+ Wxf7
13.f3 t'bf6 14.fxe4 15.0-0+-)
12.axb4 e6 13.dxe6+ 14.
g6 15. b6 16 . .i.f4 .i.d6
17 . .i.xd6 cxd6 t'bf6 19.
ctJb5, Black loses a pawn.
In case of: 7 ... ctJb8 8.ctJxe5
9.ctJxb5 a6 (9 ... c6? 10.
ctJf6 11. dxc6+-) 10. ctJc3 ctJf6 11.
122

14. White has a huge
positional edge.
Black plays quite seldom
4 . because after he
has difficult problems to solve.
The trade: 5 ... facilitates
White's development. After:
d6 7.0-0 t'bc6 8.exd6!,
Black must choose between three
possibilities:
8 ... exd6 9.l':!.e1+ 10.d5
ctJe5 (It is even worse for Black
to play: 10 ... ctJd8 11.ctJc3 t'bf6 12.
0-0 14 . .i.xf6+-)
1l.ctJxe5 dxe5 12.l:!.xe5 0-0-0 13.
c4 14.J:.el, and White has
an extra pawn;
8 ... thd6 9.ctJc3 0-0-0 (9 ... ctJf6
10.d5 ctJb4 11. c6 12.
l::tb8 cxd5
e6 l':!.d7
ctJxd4 (12 ... ctJxd4
14.ctJe5 l':!.e7 15J:!ad1 ctJxc2 16.
J:.d2 t'bb4 17 13.ctJe5. It
is obviously best for Black to fol-
low with: 8 ... cxd6 9.d5 ctJb4 10.
ctJa6 11.J:.el.
In case of5 ... 6.ctJc3 ctJc6,
White plays again 7.exd6. Now
after: 7 ... exd6 Ji.e7 9.
j,xf5 10.d5 ctJe5 (10 ... ctJd8
11.0-0) c6
12.tLlxe5 13.iLe3+-) 12.
tLlxf3+ 13.gxf3 ti.d8 14.iLe3
c5 15.0-0-0. White remains
with an extra pawn and a better
position, while in the line: 7 ...
iLxd3 8. exd6 9.0-0 tLlge7
0-0-0 (10 ... d5 n.tLla4)
n.d5 tLle5 12.tLlxe5 dxe5 13Jhe5
f6 14.ti.e4 tLlxd5 15.11d4 c6 (15 ...
tLlxc3 16.11xd7 llxd7 17.
18.iLe3+-) 16.tLlxd5 cxd5 17.c4,
his position is nearly winning,
because Black cannot play: 17 ...
dxc4, because of 18.!hc4+
19.iLf4+ iLd6 20.ti.d4+-.
It is possible for Black to con-
tinue with: 4 ... g6 5.iLc4 d5 6.
iLb3. His position seems solid
enough, but there appears a
drawback that is quite typical for
all the lines that have been
analysed in this chapter - Black
has almost no counterplay at all.
6 ... iLg7 (6 ... iLg4 7.tLlbd2 e6 8.h3
iLxf3 9.CtJxf3 tLld7 10.0-0 tLle7
n.c3;!; Roa - Alvarado, Madrid
2000) 7.0-0 7 ... e6 (7 ... c6 8.c4 dxc4
9.iLxc4 tLlh6 10.h3 0-0 11.tLlc3 b6
12J:rea De La Riva - Beltran,
Barcelona 1995) 8.c4 c6 9.tLlc3
tLle7 10.ti.e1 0-0 11.iLf4 h6 12.h4
tLlf5 13.g3 b6 14. tLla6 15.
''ad1 tLlc7 16.cxd5 exd5 17.iLc2
Here, in the game on -
Djurkovic, Nova Gorica 1999,
White found an interesting plan:
iLe6 19.h5, and Black's
position easily turned from
worse into hopeless! 19 ... !th8
(19 ... tLle7 20 . ..h1 iLg4 21.iLxh6
iLxh6 23.hxg6+
l.e4 tLlf6 2.e5 Ci'Jg8 3.d4
fxg6+ tLlg8 25 . ..xh6+
tLlxh6 26 . ..h1 ':xf2+
fig7 29.g4+-) 20.
ti.h1 21.hxg6 fxg6 22.iLxf5
iLxf5 23.iLxh6+-.
5.h3
N ow Black has to decide
where to move his bishop.
5 ... iLh5
The retreat 5 ... iLf5 enables
White to transpose to some lines
that have been analysed in other
chapters. For example, the posi-
tions after 6.iLd3 are quite simi-
lar to these arising after: 4 ... iLf5
5 . .id3, while 6.g4 (or 6 ... iLe4
7.tLlc3 .ixf3 8.fixf3 c6 9.iLc4)
leads to the line 7.e6 fxe6 8.tLlg5
that we will also analyse later.
The exchange 5 ... iLxf3 6.
fixf3, presents White with the
two-bishop advantage:
6 ... d5 7. b6 (Black loses
after 7 ... tLlc6? 8.fixb7 tLlxd4 9.
.ib5+ tLlxb5 11.
Garbarino - Slipak, Bari-
loche 1986.) 8.c4 e6 9.cxd5 fixd5
10. exd5 11.a3 tLle7 12.tLlc3
c6 13 . .id3 tLlg6 14.0-0 iLe7 15.
.ie3 0-0 16.f4 f5 17 . ..acl.
In case of 6 ... c6 7.fib3 (the
pawn sacrifice 7.e6 fxe6 is un-
123
Chapter 8
clear because White has no more
the knight on the kingside)
7 .. :f:!c7 (Black is risking to stay
without castling after 7 .. :f:!b6
S.exd6, for example: 8 ... exd6
9. 'f:!e3+ iJ..e7 10.iJ..d3 ttJf6 11.0-0
ttJd5 12:f:!e4 ttJd7 13.ttJc3 ttJ5f6
14. 'f:!e3 or S ... 'f:!xb3 9.axb3 exd6
10.iJ..d3 lLlf6 11.0-0 .i.e7 12.l:te1)
8.exd6 exd6 9 . .i.f4 il.e7? (It is
better for Black to play: 9 ... lLld7
10.il.d3lLlgf6 11.0-0 il.e7 12.l:te1
lLlb6 13.c4;!; Boschma - Etmans,
corr. 2000.) 10.il.c4, Black is sud-
denly faced with insurmountable
problems: 10 ... il.f6 11.0-0 b5
(Capturing the pawn by 11 ...
iJ..xd4 is suicidal: 12.l:td1 iJ..e5
13.il.xe5 dxe5 14.il.xf7+ "f:!xf7
15.l:td8+ 16.'f:!xb7+-; 12 ...
il.c5 13.'f:!c3 lLlf6 14.l:te1+
15. 'f:!xf6 gxf6 16.il.h6+ 17.
l:teS#; 14 ...
lLleS 12.l:te1+ 13.
'f:!g3 il.e7 14.l:txe7! lLlxe7 15.iJ..xd6
'f:!dS 16.lLla3 bxc4 (or 16 ..
17.l:te1 lLlf5 lS.il.xf7+ 19.
'f:!b3+ 20.l:te6+ 21.iJ..f4+
and White checkmates) 17.::te1
18.iJ..xe7 'f:!eS 19.1Llxc4 ttJd7
20.lLld6+- Berg - Etmans, corr.
2000.
6.g4 iJ..g6
7.e6!?
According to GM R.Spiel-
mann - that sacrifice should be
called "restraining".
7 fxe6 S ..tc4 'f:!cS
In the event of 8 ... d5 9.il.d3
iJ..xd3 10. 'f:!xd3 White could play
by analogy with the game of
Klinger.
9.lLlg5 d5 10.il.d3 il.xd3 11.
'f:!xd3
The extra pawn does not help
Black much. It is even hindering
him to develop harmoniously.
Only a few moves later White is
going to regain the pawn with a
big positional advantage: 11 ..
lLlf6 12.lLlc3lLlc6 13.il.f4 'f:!d7 14.
0-0-0 g6 (14 ... 0-0-0? 15.lLlf7) 15.
l:thel il.h6 (15 ... lLldS 16.lLlb5 .l:tcS
17.lLlxa7 .l:taS lS.lLlb5 l:tcS 19.
lLlf3) 16.lLlxe6 il.xf4+ 17.lLlxf4
0-0-0 19.1Lle6
Klinger - Buecker, Buende 19S5.
Conclusion
It was easily predictable that the weird retreat of the knight to g8
was not strategically sound. White is naturally developing his pieces
and easily obtains a spatial advantage. In the event when Black's
bishop leaves the c8-h3 diagonal (5.h3 iLh5), White could employ a
"restraining" sacrifice on e6.
124
Chapter 9 l.e4 liJf6 2.e5 liJd5 3.d4
This chapter will be devoted
to the moves a) 3 ... eS and b)
3 ... dS.
The move 3 ... lLJc6, leads Black
quickly into trouble: 4.c4 lLJb6
(He does not lose a piece outright
in case of: 4 ... lLJdb4, but after 5.a3
ctJa6 6.b4lLJab8 7.b5lLJa5
c6 Black's position is
extremely difficult.) 5.d5 lLJb4
(5 ... lLJxe5 6.c5 lLJbc4
6.c5 lLJ6xd5 7.a3 and he loses a
piece.
Black plays sometimes: 3 ... c5.
Following 4.c4, his knight has
two possible retreats. In case of:
4 ... ctJc7 5.dxc5 ctJc6 6.ctJf3 ctJe6,
Black regains his pawn indeed,
but after: 7.ctJc3ctJxc5 8 . .ie2 he
has great problems due to the
lack of harmony in the develop-
ment of his pieces. This is par-
ticularly evident, concerning his
knights, since they have only one
good place for maneuvers - the
e6-square. In case Black chooses
another route for his knight:
4 ... ctJb4, then after 5.dxc5 he has
problems to regain his pawn. In
the game R.Byrne - Soltis, Men-
tor 1977, there followed: 5 ... a5?
(It is better for Black to play 5 ...
ti'a5 6.ctJc3 ti'xc5, but his position
remains again difficult. After
7.ctJf3, he cannot complete his
development in a normal fash-
ion, for example he loses imme-
diately after: 7 ... ctJ8c6?, because
ti'a5 9.a3 ctJa6 10.b4+-.)
6.ctJc3ctJ8c6 7.ctJf3 g6 8 . ..tf4
9 . ..te2 0-0 10.0-0+- and Black
cannot regain his pawn at all.
It is premature for Black to
try 3 ... g6. He lags in develop-
ment then and White can play
much more aggressively than
I usually recommend ... : 4.c4
ctJb6 5.c5ctJd5 6 . .ic4 c6 7.ctJf3 b6
8.ctJc3 ctJxc3 9.bxc3 and White
preserves excellent attacking
prospects. There were interest-
ing developments in the game
Sutovsky - Varga, Budapest
125
Chapter 9
1999. It continued: 9 ... .lta6 (9 ...
bxc5 10.ciJg5 e6 11.t;!f3 f5 12.exf6
d5 13.iii.d3) 10.iii.b3 bxc5 11.
Ct:Jg5! c4 f6 13.exf6 exf6
14.0-0 iii.e7 (in case of 14 ...
15 . .ltd2 <t>dS 16.lHel t;!g7 17.
SLa4 White's attack is again too
powerful) 15.i..c2 f5 (15 ... fxg5
16J:te1:f8 lS.SLxg6
hxg6 20.t;!g7 :f7
21. t;!gS+ 22. t;!xg6+ 23.
SLxg5+-) 0-0 17.t;!e3 i..f6?
(17 ... SLxg5 IS. t;!xg5 t;!xg5 19.
SLxg5) 18.Ct:Jxh7 c;t>xh7 19.t;!h6+
c;t>gS 20.t;!xg6+ i..g7 21.i..g5 and
Black resigned.
It is possible for Black to fol-
low with 3 ... c6. This move is use-
ful for him in several variations
of the Alekhine Defence. Some-
times it helps him defend his
knight on d5 (for example in the
line 3 ... d6 4.Ct:Jf3 g6 5.i..c4 c6);
sometimes - after the develop-
ment of the bishop on cS to g4
and its subsequent exchange for
White's knight - he thus protects
his b7-pawn. On the other hand,
Black plays that move a bit early
and so he reduces his own possi-
bilities - his knight cannot be
developed to the c6-square any-
more. 4.Ct:Jf3 g6 5.i..e2 i..g7 6.0-0
0-0 (in case of 6 ... d6 7.c4 Ct:Jc7
S.exd6 9.Ct:Jc3 0-0 10.SLe3
SLf5 11. there arises a
transposition to the variation:
3 ... d6 4.Ct:Jf3 c6) 9. 7 .c4 ttJc7 8.i..f4
and White is clearly better. Fol-
lowing S ... Ct:Je6 9.SLe3 d6 10.exd6
t;!xd6 11. t;!d2;J;;, in the game
Jacob - Gutman, Senden 1999,
126
White had the advantage thanks
to his extra space and superior
piece-coordination.
Finally, Black has often tried
in practice the prophylactic move
3 ... ttJb6. Here, after 4.a4 a5
White should better continue
with: 5.i..b5!?, forcing the not so
useful move for his opponent
here: 5 ... c6 - and as a result
Black at first cannot attack the
d4-pawn with the move ttJbS-c6
anymore and secondly, he cannot
capture on d6 with the c-pawn,
in case of a pawn-trade in the
centre. (Following 5 ... ttJc6 6.ttJf3
d5 7.0-0 SLg4 S.h3 SLh5 9.e6! fxe6
10.g4 SLg6 1l.Ct:Je5, Black's po-
sition is very difficult and in an-
swer to 5 ... e6, White plays 6.
and the development of
Black's kingside has been ham-
pered. In the game Bucher -
Hammer, Switzerland 1997,
there followed: 6 ... h5 7.t;!g3 c6
8.i..d3) 6.SLd3 d5, Tal- Lutikov,
Moscow 1969, (6 ... g6 7.c3 i..g7
S.Ct:Jf3 d6 9.exd6 t;!xd6 10.0-0
0-0 11.b3 - or 11.ttJbd2 with the
idea ttJd2-e4 - 11 .. . SLg4 12.SLa3
t;!f6 13.Ct:Jbd2 tLld5 14. t;!c2). M-
ter 7.SLg5 g6 8.h4 h6 9.SLe3 SLg7
10.Ct:Jd2 tLla6 11.c3 White's ad-
vantage is overwhelming. He has
plenty of extra space; moreover
Black's knights are terribly mis-
placed.
a) 3 ... e6 4.tLlf3
(diagram)
4 ... tLlc6
I t is too dangerous for Black
to follow with 4 ... c5, because in
the variation: 5.c4 ttJb6 6 . .1g5! he
has no satisfactory continua-
tions. In case of 6 .. :ltic7 7.ttJc3
White's threats are extremely
dangerous. It is even worse for
Black to play: 6 ... .1e7 7 . .1xe7
'lfixe7 8.a4, because it turns out
that his knight on b6 is mis-
placed and he is forced to give up
a pawn: 8 ... d5 9.exd6 'lfixd6
10.b4!+-.
4 ... .1e7 5.c4 ttJb6 6.ttJc3 d6
7.exd6 cxd6 8 . .1e2 0-0 (Black
has also tested in practice the
variation: 8 ... ttJ8d7 9.0-0 ltJf6
10.a4 0-0, Leskovar - Mazzoleni,
Buenos Aires 1994 and here af-
ter the logical line: 11.a5 ttJbd7
12. 'lfib3 e5 13JIdl White re-
mains with a great space advan-
tage and a superior development,
so his prospects are very prom-
ising. Mter 10 ... a5 11. 'lfib3 0-0
12JId1 .1d7 13.h3 i:.c8 14 . .1e3
White dominates in the centre
and Black can hardly organize
any counterplay.) 9.0-0 ttJ6d7
(Black's defence is extremely dif-
ficult after: 9 ... i.d7 10.i.e3 ttJa6,
Goreskul - Szabo, Gyongyos
1999, because he is faced with
serious problems to solve after:
l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 e6 4.ttJ[3
11. 'lfib3 'lfic7 12 . .ttacl. It is even
worse for Black to play: 11 ... .ttc8
12.a4 'lfic7 13.ltJb5 'lfib8 14 . .1f4)
10 . .1f4 a6 11.b4 b6 12.'lfib3 i.b7
13.i:.fdl, Klaus - Pepke, Stetten
1988. White maintains a great
space. advantage and free piece-
development. He has excellent
chances to seize the initiative in
the centre and on the queenside.
5.c4 ttJb6
Black are clearly worse:
5 ... .1b4+? - this seemingly
attractive check, with the idea to
simplify the position, suddenly
loses surprisingly quickly: 6.
'it'e2! ttJb6 (Black loses a piece
after his other possibilities: 6 ...
0-0 7.cxd5 exd5 8.a3+-; 6 ... d6
7.cxd5 exd5 8.a3+- Mullen -
Stad, Email 1999.) 7.c5 ttJd5 8.
a3 .1a5 9.b4+- Zynaps - Dig,
Internet 2001. White's king is
presently stranded in the centre
indeed, but Black's compensa-
tion for the piece is obviously in-
sufficient, since he cannot open
files in the centre so easily;
5 ... ttJde7?!, Schulz - Klinger,
Lingen 2002. White can now
achieve an overwhelming advan-
tage in the centre after the logi-
cal line: 6.d5! ttJb8 (6 ... ttJb4 7.ttJc3
ttJa6 8 . .1d3) 7.ttJc3 d6 8.exd6
cxd6 9.dxe6 i.xe6 10.ttJd4 and
Black's defence is rather un-
pleasant, because of the weak-
ness on d6 and his lag in devel-
opment;
5 ... ttJdb4?! 6.a3 ttJa6 7.b4 ttJe7
(Black tried a really strange
127
Chapter 9
piece-sacrifice in the game Kelbl
- Gabucci, Email 2001 - 7 ...
.ixb4+? 8.axb4ltJaxb4 9 . .ita3+-)
8.ltJc3, White's superior devel-
opment and his abundance of
extra space provide him with a
stable edge, Higgins - Newton,
corr.1995.
6.ltJc3
6 ... d6
6 ... d5 - Black loses time like
that and he enables White to
complete a positional bind with:
7.c5 ltJd7 ltJe7 9.0-0
Malijevsky - Novak, Czech Re-
public. 1996. White has a great
space advantage and a superior
development.
6 ... - Black's bishop is not
so well placed here. It belongs
to the e7-square. O-O?
(This is a blunder, but Black's
position is terrible anyway: 7 ... d6
8.0-0 dxe5 9.dxe5 h6
7 ... d5 8.c5ltJd7 9.0-0)
'it>xh7 9.ltJg5+ 'it>g6 10.h4!
1I.h5+ 12. 13.
bxc3 f5 14.exf6 1-0 Jones -
Smith, corr. 1992.
7.exd6 cxd6
That seemingly tentative
move is aimed at preventing the
128
pin ofthe knight, which becomes
possible after: e5 9.0-0
.ig4.
8 .. .ie7
Black has also tested a line,
which weakens the dark squares
considerably: 8 ... g6?! ltJe7
(Black would not fare any better
after: 9 ... f6 while in
case of: 9 ... 1I.
he will have problems with
the safety of his king.) 10 . .itf6
l:tg8 1I.O-0. Black lags in devel-
opment and his pieces are dis-
coordinated, Ardovsky - G.An-
dersen, Dos Hermanas 2003.
9.0-00-0
9 ... - Black presents
White with two valuable tempi
for the development of his initia-
tive with this dubious move:
10.d5 exd5, Miller - Noland,
Email 1999 and here White can
exploit the unfavourable place-
ment of the enemy queen with
the move 11.ltJb5!
Black can counter that with
three sensible moves, but they all
lead to difficult positions for him:
11 ... 12.cxd5ltJb8 (It looks
like Black is arranging the set for
a new game ... On the other hand
he loses immediately after:
12 ... lbe5 13.lbxe5 dxe5 14.d6+-,
while 12 ... lbb4 lb4xd5
leads to a
position in which Black lags in
development and he has plenty
of weaknesses. He can hardly
find a safe haven for his king in
the nearest future.) 13.i.e3 0-0
14Jlc1lb8d7 (14 ... lba6
15.l:!.el White enjoys a great
space advantage and his devel-
opment is superior;
1l .. :?fl'b8 12.cxd5 lbe5 (12 ...
i.f6
13.lbxe5 dxe5 14.d6
i.d8 Black's pieces are
so misplaced that his defence will
be extremely difficult;
1l ... 12.cxd5 lbe5 (It is
again worse for Black to defend
with: 12 ... lbb4 13:?fl'd4 lb4xd5
i.f6 13.lbxe5
dxe5 14.i.e3 0-0 15.d6 White
remains with a stable advantage,
because of his powerful passed
pawn in the centre, excellent de-
velopment and superior piece-
coordination.
lO.i.e3
lO ... d5
This is the most logical varia-
l.e4 lbf6 2.e5lbd5 3.d4 e6 4.lbf3
tion for Black, but he has tried
some other moves in practice too:
10 ... f5 11.d5! lbe5, Froeyman
- Draftian, Belgium 2001 and
now White's simplest line would
have been: 12.lbxe5 dxe5 13.d6
i.g5 14. his advantage is
stable and long lasting, because
of his excellent development and
powerful passed d6-pawn, de-
spite the seemingly dangerous
black pawn-centre;
After 10 ... .td7, White must
find the most logical set-up for
his heavy pieces in the centre, in
order to prepare d5, or c5 at an
opportune moment and also to
prevent Black's counterplay con-
nected with e6-e5, and that is -
11.t!:c1 'it>h8 12. 13.l:!.fd1
f6 (It is already too late for Black
to play 13 ... d5, because after:
14.c5lbc4 15.i.xc4 dxc4 16.
he will have problems to defend
his c4-pawn; additionally he has
to be constantly on the alert for
White's possibility to accomplish
the pawn-break d4-d5.) 14.b3 d5
15.c5lba8 16.a3, White's initia-
tive on the queenside is running
smoothly and Black's counter-
play is nowhere to be seen,
Schmitzer - Kuban, Hessen
1990;
The move 10 ... a6 is too slow.
11.d5 exd5 12.cxd5lbe5 13.lbxe5
dxe5, SonnyTom - Backstab,
Internet 1998, and here after:
14. 15.lbe4lbf6 16.i.b6
17.lbxf6+ i.xf6 18J:tfdl,
White remains with a dangerous
passed pawn in the centre and
129
Chapter 9
an excellent development.
1l.c5ltJd7 12.l:.bl b6 13.b4
White's queenside initiative
is very powerful and Black has
no counterplay whatsoever, Ka-
nani - Radhy Sol, Dubai 1986.
b) 3 ... d6 4.ltJf3
We will analyze in this chap-
ter the lines: bI) 4 .. c6, b2)
4 .. .Jtf5 and b3) 4 ... ltJb6.
About 4 ... ltJc6 - see Chapter
10, 4 ... dxe5 - see Chapter 11,
4 ... g6 - see Chapter 12, while the
main defence for Black 4 ... .Jtg4
will be dealt with in chapters 13-
15. The move 4 ... e6, after 5.c4
ltJb6 (it is worse for Black to play:
5 ... ltJe7 6.exd6 cxd6 7 . .Jtd3)
6.exd6 cxd6 7 . .Jtd3, transposes to
the line - 3 ... e6.
Black plays only very seldom
130
4 ... ltJd7. He closes temporarily
the c8-h3 diagonal for his bishop
with this move. Following 5.c4,
Black has two possible retreats
for his knight, but he is in trouble
after both of them:
After 5 ... ltJ5b6, White has
the typical restricting sacrifice at
his disposal: 6.e6!, for example:
6 ... fe 7.ltJc3ltJf6 (7 ... c5 8.ltJg5+-;
7 ... e5 8.ltJg5ltJf6 9.dxe5+-) 8 . .id3
g6, Chatalbashev - Ratel, Creon
2004. White can obtain an over-
whelming advantage now by
playing energetically: 9.ltJg5!
.ig7 (l0 ... e5 1l.dxe5
ltJg4 12.exd6 13.ltJb5;
12 ... cxd6 13.0-0 and White's
game against Black's hanging
pawns is quite comfortable,
while his opponent's pieces are
discoordinated.) 11.0-0 0-0 12.
:e 1 e5 (It is worse for Black to
play: 12 ... ltJe8 13.ltJxh7! 'It>xh7 14.
'It>g8 16 . .Jth6
:f7 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.
ltJf3, because White regains his
pawn and he preserves his pres-
sure along the central files;
The retreat of the knight
5 ... ltJb4, enables White to obtain
an edge in another fashion:
6.exd6 exd6 7 . .Jte2 .ie7 8.0-0
0-0 9.ltJc3ltJb6 (It is possibly bet-
ter for Black to play: 9 ... ltJf6 , af-
ter which White can follow with:
10.a3ltJc6 1l.h3;!;. Black has lost
plenty of tempi on knight-moves
and at the end both his knights
went back to where they started
from. Meanwhile, the c6-square
is not the right place for Black's
l.e4 tDf6 2.e5 tDd5 8.d4 d6 4.tDf.3 c6 5 . .i.e2
knight in this pawn-structure,
because its prospects there are
quite questionable. He should
have placed it instead on d7, with
the idea to transfer it to e6, or
g6, via the fB-square.) a5
(or 10 ... tDc6 11.d5 tDe5 12.tDxe5
dxe5 idS 14.lladl) 11.a3
tDc6 and it is not good for
Black to follow with: 12 ...
13.d5 tDe5 (It is only slightly bet-
ter for Black to continue with
13 ... a4 14. tDe5 cxb6
16.tDxa4, because White still
remains with an extra pawn and
a superior position.) 14.tDxe5
dxe5 15.d6!+- and Black loses
material.
hI) 4 ... c6 5 . .lte2
Mter the game often
transposes to variations, which
arise after other move-orders, for
example: 5 ... dxe5 6.tDxe5 - see
4 ... dxe5 5.tDxe5 c6 5 ...
..ig4 6.c4 - see 4 ... ..ig4 5 . ..ie2 c6
6.c4.
In this chapter, we will only
deal with moves that lead to
original variations.
5 ... g6
Or 5 ... tDd7 6.c4 tDc7 7.exd6
exd6 8.tDc3 iLe7. There were two
games, which reached that posi-
tion - (Almasi - Mozes, Budapest
1991 and Cabrilo - M.Grunberg,
Bjeljina 2000) and in both of
them White placed his bishop on
the f4-square either immedi-
ately, or on the next move. This
was a bit dubious decision, be-
cause the bishop could be at-
tacked by the black knight on
the c7 -square, for example:
0-0 10.h3 tDf6 11.0-0 d5 12 . .l:tel
dxc4 and here White played:
13 . ..ixc7 (otherwise Black places
his knight on d5 and follows with
..ie6) 13 ... 14 . ..ixc4 ..if5, now
White could have maintained his
initiative with 15.tDe5 with the
idea to continue with In
general, it is even better for
White to postpone a bit the de-
velopment of his dark squared
bishop and to play for example:
9.0-00-0 10J!el!? and h2-h3;
5 ... .ltf5 6.tDh4!? e6 (6 ... .i.e6
7.f41 M4-f5; 6 .. 7.exd6 exd6
8.tDxf5 9.0-0 ..ie7, now
White can follow with the origi-
nal maneuver 10 . .i.g4!? 11 .
..ic8 and Black will be forced to
give up a pawn: 11...a5 12.iLxb7
.l:ta7 13 . ..ic8. It is not good for
Black to play: 6 ... .i.g6 7.e6!
8.tDxg6 fxg6 9.0-0 tDf6 10.c4 tDa6
11.tDc3 tDc7 12.d5. His position
now is strategically hopeless and
the game Royset - Michalsen,
Tromsoe 2001, continued with:
12 ... cxd5 13.cxd5 14.b4
15J:tb1! 16.
17 . .i.b2 b5 18 . .i.xb5 tDfxd5
131
Chapter 9
- 18 ... 19.i.xf6 gxf6 20.
i.e2+- - 19.i.xc3 tLlxc3 20.
tLl3xb5 21.1Ixb5 and Black re-
signed.) 7.tLlxf5 exffi, Radivojevic
- Madjar, Golubac 2003, 8.0-0;1:;
and the doubling of the f-pawns
turns out to be in favour of
White, despite the fact that
Black has acquired the comfort-
able e6-square for his knight.
6.c4
6 ... tLlc7
This is the key-difference in
comparison to the usual lines -
Black has an additional place for
the retreat of that knight - the
c7 -square. It can be transferred
from there to e6 in order to at-
tack White's d4-pawn.
In case Black plays now 6 ...
tLlb6, then after 7.exd6, he can-
not capture with the queen, be-
cause of c4-c5, so he has to fol-
low with: 7 ... exd6 8.i.g5 i.e7
9.i.xe7 10.0-0 i.e6 11.1Ie1
0-0 12.tLlc3;1:; Kocsis - Bagoly,
Hungary, 1996 and White re-
mains clearly better, because of
the misplacement of Black's
knight. Instead of exchanging on
e7, White could have tried the
move 9.i.h6!?, preventing Black
132
from castling short.
7 .exd6 B.tLlc3 i.g7
9.i.e3
The arising pawn-structure
resembles the line: 4 ... g6 5.i.c4
c6 6.exd6 which we have
analyzed in Chapter 12. The dif-
ference is that at first White's
bishop had not been developed to
c4, but it was deployed to e2 im-
mediately (it is well placed on
that square, because it cannot be
attacked by Black on the queen-
side) and secondly, White has
already played c2-c4, so he has
ousted Black's knight away from
the centre, but he has weakened
his d4-pawn a bit.
9 ... tLlba6
Black can hardly change any-
thing with: 9 ... 0-0 10. tLlba6
11.i.f4;1:; 12.i.h6 i.g4 13.i.xg7
14.d5 and here, instead of
the horrible blunder: 14 ... cxd5??
Komliakov - Tobak,
Koszalin 1999, he had better
play: 14 ... i.xf3 15.i.xf3 cxd5
16.cxd5 17 . .:i.d1;t and White
would have only a slight advan-
tage, mostly because of the weak-
ness of the e7-pawn.
i.g4 11.0-0 0-0 12.
l::.adl.:i.adB
l.e4 0,f6 2.e5 0,d5 3.d4 d6 4.0,f3 i.f55.i.e2
13. It is useful for
White to take his queen away
from the d-file in order to defend
the d6-square effectively. This
position was reached in the game
Dolmatov - Petrosian, Moscow
1981. White's position is clearly
preferable. The reason is already
quite familiar to us - both black
knights are terribly misplaced.
The game continued with: 13 ..
b5 14.b3 (White does not wish
to surrender the d5-square to his
opponent.) 14 . bxc4 15.bxc4
(Black is threatening to cap-
ture on f3.) 16.a3 17.0,e5
.llxe5 (Black cannot play 17 ...
.llxe2, because after: 18.tZ'lxc6!
19.0,xe2 20.f3
21.0,a5, his queen gets trapped
after all.) 18 . .llxg4 .llg7 19.0,e2
20.0,f4 0,e8 21.d5! 0,f6
22 .llf3 cxd5 23.0,xd5 tZ'lxd5
24 .l:txd5t. White has created a
passed pawn and his advantage
has become even more evident as
a result. 24 ... 0,c7 25J1xd8 %:.xd8
26.c5 lid3. This move is too risky,
because Black weakens his last
rank. (He would not have created
any counterplay by playing
26 ... 0,e6 either, because of 27.
c6t.) lib3 0,e6
29.c6 lixa3 30. h5 31. tftxe7
.llf8 a5 33.g3 34.
:tc1 h4 36.c7+-
and White won.
b2) 4 .. .ltf5
(diagram)
This is a good developing
move, but it has a definite draw-
back in comparison to the popu-
lar lines for Black. He is not
counterattacking effectively
White's pawn-centre.
5 . .lle2 e6
The move 5 ... h6 - does not
lose outright indeed, but it is
hardly necessary at that mo-
ment. White does not intend to
exchange the bishop on f5 and
the move tZ'lg5 is not a part of his
plans yet. 6.0-0 e6 7.c4 0,b6
8 . ..te3 (White could have devel-
oped his knight too - 8.0,c3, with
the idea to develop the bishop -
.llf4.) 8 ... .lle7 9.0,c3 c6?? (9 ... 0-0
10.%:.c1;t) 10.exd6+- - and since
Black cannot capture on d6, be-
cause of c4-c5 - he can just re-
sign, Juarez - Aima, San Isidoro
1993.
5 ... dxe5 6.tZ'lxe5 0,d7, Boro-
chow - Bagby, Los Angeles 1929,
7.0,f3 (This retreat is quite typi-
cal for similar positions - White
wants to avoid the exchange in
the centre and the loss of tempi
is immaterial.) 7 ... e6 8.0-0 .lte7
9.c4 0,5b6 10.0,c3;t and there
arises a transposition to a game
that we are going to analyze later
in this chapter - Lehmann,
Leutersdorf 2002.
133
Chapter 9
5 ... ctJc6 6.0-0 dxe5 (6 ... e6 - see
5 ... e6; 6 ... g6. This move does not
combine well with .l1.cS-ffi. 7.c4
ctJb6 S.exd6 cxd6 9.d5 ctJe5 10.
ctJxe5 - 10.lbd4!? - 10 ... dxe5 11.
ctJc3 l::tcS 12. .l1.g7 13 . .l1.e3
and after c4-c5, White's central
pawns become extremely dan-
gerous.) 7.c4!? (in case of7.dxe5,
it is good for Black to follow with:
7 ... lbdb4 - he attacks the c2-
pawn and thus he forces a tran-
sition to a favourable endgame.)
7 ... lbf4. Black is trying to exploit
the temporary placement of his
pawn on the e5-square. (He
should avoid the line: 7 ... ctJdb4
S.d5 lbc2 9.dxc6
ctJxa1 11.cxb7 .i:tbS 12.lbxe5+-
Scrimgour - Fielder, Scotland
19S1, because White already
has more than enough material
for the exchange and he is threat-
ening .l1.a4, while Black's knight
is totally isolated on the a1-
square.) S . .l1.xf4 (It is also inter-
esting for White to try: S.d5
ctJxe2+ 9. ctJd4 10.ctJxd4
exd4 and Black should
better refrain from capturing the
pawn with: 11.. . .l1.d3 12.J::td1
.l1.xc4 13. .l1.a6 14.ctJc3t, be-
cause White's lead in develop-
ment more than compensates
his minimal material deficit, so
he should try instead: 11...e6
c5o or 12.l:te1 and
Black manages to castle, because
it is too dangerous for White to
leave his opponent's passed
pawn on the d4-square.) 8 ... exf4
9.d5 ctJb8 10.ctJc3. It is quite
134
clear now that White will regain
the f4-pawn without any prob-
lems, since Black can hardly
defend it with anything. It is
now too difficult for Black to de-
velop his kingside, because
White can counter g7-g6 with
the move while in case of
10 ... e6 (10 ... lba6 - 11.
ctJd4t - Black's lag in develop-
ment might become disastrous
for him.
6.0-0
6 ... .l1.e7
6 ... lbc6. Usually, it is not ad-
visable for Black to develop his
knight here so early, because
White has the possibility d4-d5
at his disposal. 7.c4 ctJb6 8.exd6
cxd6 9.d5 exd5 (It is bad for Black
to play: 9 ... lbe5?! 10.lbd4 i.e7
11.lbc3 0-0 12.f4. This move is
even more energetic than the
capture on ffi. 12 ... lbexc4 13.g4
.ig6 14.f5 exf5 15.gxf5 .l1.g5
16.fxg6 hxg6 17 . .ixc4 ctJxc4 IS.
and White remained with
a material advantage, Fiori de
Azevedo - Nasser, Vitoria 1961.)
1O.cxd5 lbe5 11.ctJd4 .l1.d7 12.f4
lbg6 13.ffi (It deserved attention
for White to try here: 13.ctJc3, in
l.e4 0,f6 2.e5 0,d5 3.d4 d6 4.0,{3 iLf55.i.e2
order to follow with f4-f5 on the
next move: 13 ... 14.f5 0,e5
15.0,e6 .txe6 16.fxe6 0-0 17.
.te3:t and White maintained his
pawn on the e6-square.) 13 ... 0,e5
14.0,e6 g6, Torhola
- Houtsonen, Finland 1991,
White's simplest line here was:
16.0,xfBl:txfB (16 ... .txf5
- and Black will have to lose the
exchange on the fB-square any-
way.) 17.f6. Black's king is
stranded in the centre and the
knight on e5 (which is covering
it presently) is something White
can easily cope with.
Following: 6 ... dxe5 7.0,xe5,
Black has tried in practice:
7 ... .te7 8.c4 0,b6 9.0,c3 0,8d7
10.0,f3 c5 (White was threaten-
ing c4-c5 and
(11.d5 0-0 .tf6
exd5 14.cxd5 c4oo) 11 ... cxd4 12.
0,xd4 13. White has
a slight space advantage and
he has better prospects on the
queenside. In the game Vogt -
Lehmann, Leutersdorf 2002,
Black failed to solve his problems
after: 13 .. J:tc8 14.b3 0-0 15JHdl
a6 16.a4l1c7 - it was
quite unclear whether Black re-
ally needed his rook on the c7-
square. Then he blundered hor-
ribly with: 17 ... e5? and after
18.0,f3 .tc5 l:!xc5 20.b4
lIc7 21.c5 22.lIac1 0,a8
23.0,d5+- he lost the exchange;
7 ... 0,d7 8.c4 (It is interesting
for White to try here: 8.0,f3!? and
only then to follow with c2-c4.)
8 ... 0,b4 9.0,d3 (Black had
better exchange on the d3-square
once, or even twice: 9 ... 0,xd3
.txd3 11. .te7
12.0,c3:t and White maintains a
slight advantage in a calm posi-
tion; or 9 ... .txd3
11 . .te2 0-0-0 12 . .te3:t and Black
has some counterplay along the
d-file.) 10.0,xb4 .txb4 Il.g3
(It is not good for Black to follow
with: 11... 12. he had to
play instead: 11 ... c5
13.a3
16. cxd4 17.0,d2 d3
18 . .tf3:t and he would have
had some compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.) 12.a3
13.b4+-, Black lost a piece in the
game Lepeshkin - Berdichevski,
Moscow 1989.
7.c4 0,b6 8.0,c3 0-0
The other order of moves is
too dangerous for Black: 8 ... dxe5
9.0,xe5 0-0 (He had to continue
with: 9 ... 0,8d7 10.ttJf3 0-0),
Krannich - L.Adams, Mainz
1996, because of 10.g4 .ltg6 l1.f4.
Black's bishop is really endan-
gered and in case of 11 ... f6, White
can play: 12.0,xg6 hxg6 13.c5
0,d5 14.f5.

135
Chapter 9
The usual square for White's
bishop in this pawn-structure is
- e3, but he is trying to develop
his bishop even more actively.
9 ... dxe5
It was possibly better for
Black to have refrained for a
while from that exchange, by
playing: 9 ... ttJ8d7 10.exd6 cxd6
11. ttJf6 12.a4 ttJe4 (it is ad-
visable for Black to try here
12 ... a5 13.1:tacl;!:;, although the
weakening of the b5-square
might have some long-term con-
sequences) 13.l:tfdl (White had
better grab the pawn with: 13.a5
ttJxc3 14.bxc3 ttJd7
13 ... ttJd7 14.ttJxe4 (Now, it is too
late for White to capture the
pawn: 'u'a8
'u'a8=.) 14 ...
.i.xe4 15.ttJd2 .i.c6 16.tDf1 d5 17.
c5 e5 18 . .i.xe5 tDxe5 19.dxe5
.i.xc5 and in the game Kuprei-
chik - Kengis, Sverdlovsk 1984,
Black succeeded in equalizing:
20.i.f3 21..l::i.acl i.b6 22.
i.xd5 i.xd5

10.ttJxe5 ttJSd7 1l.tDf3 ttJf6
12. ttJe4
After 12 ... c5 13 . .l:.adl
14.d5t, the active position of
White's bishop on f4 yields divi-
dends - it controls the d6-square
in front of the pawn.
13.a4 a5 14.c5 tDd5 15 . .i.g3
ttJexc3 16.bxc3 'u'a7
Or 16 ... b6 17.tDe5 (17.cxb6
cxb6) 17 ... bxc5 18.tDc6 19.
.i.b5t.
17.tDe5 .i.g5 lS . .i.f3 .i.f6
136
19.1:tfel h6 20.I:ta2 21.l:tae2
I:tdS 22.h4t
White enjoyed a space advan-
tage and a superior piece-place-
ment in the game Tseshkovsky-
Alburt, Minsk 1976.
b3) 4 ... ttJb6
This prophylactic move is
quite popular and it has been
tested by grandmasters like
P.Leko, D.Bronstein, L.Ljuboje-
vic, K.Sakaev a.nd some others.
Black retreats his knight from d5
to the b6-square, since White
could have attacked it anyway
with moves like c2-c4 and .i.f1-
c4. He then plans to fianchetto
his bishop on f8 and to attack
White's pawn-centre. Still, Black
loses time by playing deliber-
ately another move with the
1.e4 tiJf6 2.e.5 tiJd.5 3.d4 d6 4.tiJf3 tiJb6 .5.a4
same knight.
5.a4 a5
Black can try some other
lines, which do not prevent
White from playing a4-a5:
5 ... ii.g4 6.a5 lD6d7 7.h3
(White can obtain a slight advan-
tage, because of his extra space
on the queenside, with the line:
7.exd6 cxd6 8.h3 ii.h5 9.ii.e2 e6
10.c3 ii.e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.l:te1 a6
13.d5;:!; Matanovic - Ljubojevic,
Yugoslavia 1975) 7 ... ii.h5 (It is
too dangerous for Black to try
here: 7 ... .txf3 lDc6 - be-
cause of 9.e6! This is exactly
what White had in mind while
playing 7.h3. 9 ... fxe610 . .td3 tiJf6
11.c3 d5 12.a6 b6 and White won
a piece after: 13.ii.b5 14.
0-0-0 15. Romeu
Alfonso - Benavent, Valencia
1995. In case of: 11...e5 12.a6
13.axb7 14.dxe5 dxe5
15.tiJd2 - all black pawns are
catastrophically weak.) 8.g4 ii.g6
9.e6 fxe6 10.tiJg5 tiJf6 11.h4 (It is
less energetic for White to follow
with: l1..tg2 c6 12.tiJxe6
13.tiJxfS l::txfS 14.0-0 lDa6 15.c4
rttfl 16.tiJc3 'It>g8 17.f4;:!;. Pilaj -
Fahrner, Mureck 2001.) 1l ... c6
(11...h5 12 . .td3; 11...tiJc6 12.a6
bxa613.h5.tfl 14 . .l:i.xa6+-) 12.h5
.tf7 13.tiJxfl rttxfl 14.g5 tiJd5
15.c4 tiJc7 16 . .td3 and White
already creates powerful threats,
for example to capture on h7;
5 ... c6 6.a5 tiJd5. Black's delib-
erate loss of two tempi looks a
bit strange. Its idea is evidently
to maim White's pawn on a2 to
the a5-square and to attack it
later, or to exploit the b4-square
with his knight sometimes in the
future. 7 . .te2 g6 8.0-0 .tg7 9.c4
tiJc7 10.exd6 (We have ana-
lyzed a similar position, except
with a white pawn on the a2-
square, in the line 4 ... c6 5.i.e2
g6.) 11.lDc3 0-0 12 . .te3 tiJba6 13.
14.l:td1 tiJe6, Sigurjons-
son - Larsen, Ljubljana 1977,
15.d5 tiJec5 (15 ... cxd5 16.tiJxd5
tiJec5 17J:ta3) 16 . .tf4 17.
- Black's pieces are horri-
bly misplaced after the pawn-
break in the centre;
5 ... g6 6.a5 tiJ6d7 7 . .tc4 (7.
h4!?) 7 ... e6 8.0-0 d5 9.i.g5 i.e7
1O . .txe7 11..te2;:!;. This po-
sition resembles the French
Defence, but the dark squares
on Black's kingside have been
weakened considerably with the
move g7-g6. 11...0-0 12.c4 (Open-
ing of the centre is too danger-
ous for Black.) 12 ... dxc4 13.tiJc3
c5 14.d5 exd5 15.tiJxd5
16. (it is better for White to
follow with 16 . .txc4 tiJc6 17.1:te1
i1tiJxa5 18 . .tb5 tiJc6 19 . .txc6 bxc6
20.tiJe3 21.tiJc4;t and his
more than sufficient) 16 ...
17 . .txc4 lDc6 (o17 ... tiJxe5 18.
tiJxe51:txe5 19.1:tfe1 tDc6oo) 18.
.l:!.xe5 (18 ... tiJcxe5 19.tiJc7!+-)
19.tiJxe5 tDdxe5 20.1aad1 +- and
White pressed his material ad-
vantage home in the game Nai-
ditsch - Varga, Budapest 1998.
White could have possibly
tried on his move 8 another idea:
137
Chapter 9
8.h4, for example: 8 ... d5 (8 ... SLg7
9.SLg5; 8 ... lbc6 9. 9.SLg5
SLe7 10.SLd3;t and he reaches an
even more favourable deploy-
ment of pieces in the same pawn-
structure.
6.exd6
6 ... exd6
After the other possible cap-
tures on d6 - Black has problems
to complete his development:
6 ... cxd6 7.d5. This move
makes Black's kingside develop-
ment - a hard task to accom-
plish. In case of e7-e6, Black
would remain with plenty of
pawn weaknesses, while g7-g6
would be countered with
and Black would be forced to
weaken additionally his king-
side. 7 ... lba6 (We have already
mentioned that Black compro-
mises his pawn-structure consid-
erably with: 7 ... e5?! 8.dxe6 SLxe6
9.SLb5+ lbc6 10.lbg5 11.0-0
d5 12.SLe3 lbd7 13.lbc3 Zhidkov
- Mikadze, Moscow 1972.) S.SLe3
SLd7 9.lbg5 (It is not so energetic
for White to play instead: 9.c3
lbc5 10.b3 Hjartarson - Westeri-
nen, Reykjavik 1997.) 9 ... lbb4
(9 ... h6? 10.lbe6+-) 10.lbc3 g6
138
11. f6 12.lbe6 SLxe6 13.dxe6
SLg7 14.SLb5+ Kovalev -
Leko, Tilburg 1992. White's po-
sitional advantage is overwhelm-
ing in this situation. Black's king
is unsafe and it is inconceivable
how he can complete his kingside
development. Instead of the
quite unclear complications af-
ter: 15.0-0 lbxc2 lbxe3
17.fxe3l:tbS
- and Black has fortified his
position reliably on the dark
squares, it would have been
much simpler for White to have
protected his c2-pawn first with
- 15.l:tcl and castle only later;
6 ... 7.lbc3 g6 S.lbb5
9.i.f4 lba6 10.SLe5. Thus, White
forces the move fl-f6 and at first
it weakens Black's kingside
pawns and secondly it closes the
a1-hS diagonal, which Black
plans to exploit at some moment
in the future, because he will
develop his bishop along it.
10 ... f6 1l.i.g3 c6 (11...SLe6 12.
SLd3 c6 13. 14.lba3 lbb4
15.SLe4 SLh6 16.0-0 17.
:fel. Practically all black pieces
are terribly misplaced. Later, in
the game Groszpeter - Konopka,
Zalakaros 1995, there followed:
17 .. J:rheS 18.l:tad1 <t>gS 19.c3
lb4d5 20.c4 lbb4 21.b3 SLf5 22.
i.xf5 23.lbb1 lba6 24.lbc3
lIadS 25.h3 g5 26.d5 c5 27.lbb5
29 . .l::t.xe6 lbd7
30.J:.de1 lbf8 31.lbd6 and Black
resigned.) 12.lbc3 SLe6 13.lbe4
SLfl (Black had better play here:
13 ... SLd5;t.) 14 . .i.xa6 lIxa6 15.
l.e4 ctJf6 2.e5 ctJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ctJ{3 ctJb6 5.a4
(White is threatening to
checkmate on f6, or to check on
the d6-square and Black's posi-
tion is practically hopeless.)
15 ... .ig7 16.ctJd6+ 17.ctJxb7
18.ctJc5+- and White re-
mained with an overwhelming
positional and material advan-
tage, Rublevsky - Laketic, Novi
Sad 2000.
7 . .id3.ie7
Black would not change much
by playing: 7 ... 3l.g4 8.0-0 3l.e7
9 . .l:te1 0-0 10.ctJbd2 3l.h5 11.ctJf1
,.tg6 12.ctJg3, Salimaki - Westeri-
nen, Finland 1997.
8.0-0 ctJc6 9.c3 .ig4 1O.ctJbd2
1l.ctJe4 il..g6 12.ctJg3 .ixd3
13:xd30-0 14 . .l:tel;!;;
White's position is clearly su-
perior, because of his extra space
and his harmonious deployment
of pieces, Tseshkovsky - Laketic,
Tivat 1995.
Conclusion
We have analyzed in this chapter some seldom played variations
for Black on moves 3 and 4. In general, it is not so sensible for him
to avoid the natural 3 ... d6-move, counterattacking White's centre
and contributing to his piece-development, and to try something
else on move three. Some of these rarely played lines like 3 ... ctJc6, or
3 ... g6 are in fact very dangerous for Black, because White can im-
mediately create dangerous threats.
Following 3 ... d6 4.tb{3, Black's seldom played moves: 4 ... c6,
4 ... ctJb6 and 4 ... .if5 - usually lead to calm positions with a minimal
advantage for White. He often exchanges on d6 and then he devel-
ops his kings ide. Later, he castles and maintains a slight space ad-
vantage.
139
Chapter 10 l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ttJf3
ttJc6
This seemingly logical move
(Black develops a piece and he
attacks the e5-pawn.) in the
Alekhine Defence has an impor-
tant drawback - White now has
the possibility to attack the
knight with d4-dS.
5.c4 tt:Jb6 6.e6!
That restricting sacrifice is so
well-familiar to us by now. Pres-
ently, it becomes possible, be-
cause Black cannot capture with
the bishop, because of d4-d5.
6 ... fxe6
Black's extra pawn on e6 only
hampers the development of his
pieces on both sides of the board
in this position. His kingside is
also very weak now as well as the
e8-h5 and bl-h7 - diagonals in
particular.
140
He usually defends with two
different plans in this situation:
The first one is by playing g7-
g6 and i.f8-g7. He manages to
develop his kingside in that fash-
ion and to create some counter-
play against his opponent's d4-
pawn. White in his turn has a
wonderful target to attack on the
kingside - the g6-pawn. He can
follow with h2-h4-h5 and open
the position, introducing his rook
on hI into the actions.
Black's second possible plan
is to get rid of the cramping
e6-pawn by playing e6-e6. Thus,
he is inclined to return his
extra pawn, for example he can
counter d4-d5 with tt:Jc6-d4.
Later, he usually manages to
play once again e7-e5, thus de-
veloping his kingside in a natu-
ral fashion.
Sometimes, Black's two pos-
sible plans are combined to-
gether - he plays at first g7 -g6
and i.f8-g7 and only then he fol-
lows with e6-e5.
7.tt:Jc3
This is just one of the possible
3.d4 d6 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.c4lDb6 6.e6 fe 7.lDc3
move-orders for White. Contrary
to the two other possibilities -
7.h4 and 7.lDg5 - he develops his
queenside first, before the direct
attack on the kingside.
So, Black has two different
plans: a) 7 .. e5 and b) 7 .. g6.
play: 7 ... lDd7 8.lDg5 lDf6. After
9.d5 exd5 10.cxd5 lDe5 (Natu-
rally, Black cannot expect any-
thing promising for him after the
retreat: 10 ... lDb8 l1.i.d3 g6 12.
lDxh7 l:txh7 13.i.xg6+ l:tf7 14.
lDe4 lDxe4 Bathke -
Ritscher, Germany 1998.) l1.f4
lDf7 12.lDe6 (It is some-
what better for Black, but still
leading to a bad position, to play:
12 ... i.xe6 13.dxe6 lDh6, Malada
- Marinic, Split 2000, because of
14.i.e2 15.g4 lDhg8 16.g5
and he is forced to capture on e6
and give up a piece for a pawn.)
13.lDb5!+- and White wins ma-
terial. Later, in the game Mina-
sian - Sobolewski, Leningrad
1990, there followed: 13 ... lDxd5
i.xe6
16.lDxc7 + 'it>d7 17.lDxa8lDd8 18.
i.e3 lDc6 19.1tc1 and Black re-
signed.
a) 7 e5 B.d5 lDd4 9.lDxd4

lO ... e5
It is not logical for Black to
continue with: 10 ... i..f5. In case
he does not intend to play e7 -e5,
it becomes unclear why he has
given up his e6-pawn in the first
place. If Black really wants to
push e7 -e5, he should have done
it immediately in order to be able
to capture on e6 with the bishop
outright without losing an addi-
tional tempo. l1.i.e2 h5 12.0-0
13.i.e3 e5 14.dxe6 i.xe6
15.l:tfe1 i.e7 16.lDd5 i.xd5 17.
cxd5. Black has already com-
promised his kings ide with the
move h7-h5, so he cannot castle
short, while his king will come
under a very dangerous pawn-
onslaught on the queenside.
17 ... (It was bet-
ter for Black to play: 18 ... 'it>f7
19.J:.acl), Bosch - Vis, Den
Bosch 1997 and here White could
have won the game immediately
with 19.i.xb6+-.
1l.dxe6 i..xe6
It is too bad for Black to play
11 ... because after 12. thffi
gxffi 13.lDd5, he fails to regain
141
Chapter 10
his pawn after: 13 ... lbxd5 14.
cxd5 c6 15.i.c4 b5 16.Ji.b3 Ji.b7
17.dxc6 Ji.xc6 lS.0-0 0-0-0 19.
and White's material ad-
vantage has become decisive,
Baron Rodriguez - Moya Alba-
dalejo, La Roda 2005.
12.Ji.e3
12 ...
The move 12 ... is with
the idea for Black to castle
long. 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.lbb5
15. 'c3 a6 16.lbd4 Ji.e7
17.lbxe6 'xe6 cxb6
Black is trying to
exploit the weaknesses of the
shelter of White's king.
bxc4 'f5+
'xi2= and the position
is absolutely equal. It looks like
White's castling on move 13 was
not his best decision.
Having in mind that Black
plans to castle long, it is much
trickier for White to follow with
in order to counter
13 ... 0-0-0 (Black's attempt to
win a pawn after: 13 ... fails
because of: 14.0-0
d5 16. with 14.0-0t and
to proceed later with a pawn-of-
fensive on the queenside. In the
142
game Bor - Ameling, corr. 19S5,
after 13.Ji.e2, Black played 13 ...
c5 - trying to exploit the tempo-
rary vulnerability of White's
c4-pawn. 14.'f4 14 ...
Ji.e7 15.b3 Ji.f6 (Black should
have better avoided losing his
castling rights after: 15 .. J:tfS
..tf6 17J::tc1 0-0-0 IS.
ltJe4;1;.) 16 . ..th5+ 17J:tc1l:taffi
IS. 1:H7 20.
,d3;1;. Black has only compro-
mised his own position with
the move c7-c5 and then, in-
stead of castling naturally, he
started performing an artificial
castling. Later, the game fol-
lowed with: 20 ... h6 (o20 ... ..tf5
21.0-0 lbcS 22 . .l::l.fd1 b6
and White had a clear
edge.
In the game Madl - Halpin,
Canberra 1990, Black somehow
neglected the safety of his g7-
pawn and he played: 12 ... ..te7,
with the idea to follow with
Ji.f6, in case White captures
that pawn, and to obtain some
counterplay against White's
queenside. The game continued
with: 13.c5 dxc5 14. 15.
'h6lbd7 16.lbe4 17.lbxf6+
lbxf6 lS.0-0-0t
'b4+ 21.
.Jte2 0-0-0;1;) 18 ... l.1d8 19 . .i:.e1.i:%.gS
J:lg6 22.
..txc5+- and Black lost a pawn.
It would have been even better
for White to have continued with
the immediate capture:
since it was not good for Black to
capture White's c4-pawn any-
3.d4 d6 4.tDf3 CDc6 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fe 7.tDc3
way: 13 ... i..f6 14. tDxc4 15.
tDe4 tDxe3. (otherwise Black
loses a piece after 15 ... !:tfB 16.
i..g5+-) 16.tDxf6+ Wf7 17.tDxh7.
Black remains a pawn down, his
king is vulnerable and he cannot
win the exchange, because of
tDf3-g5+. The game might follow
with: 17 ... tDc2+ 18.Wd2 19.
We8 20.Wxc2 21..id3
+-.
gxf6 14.b3 0-0-0
It deserves attention for
Black to try now: 14 ... c6!? with
the idea to follow with d6-d5. In
the game Mellado Trivino -
Fontana Sotomayour, Zaragoza
2001, White played 15.i..e2 d5
16.cxd5 i..b4 17.0-0-0 tt'lxd5
18.i..h5+ We7 19.tt'lxd5+ ..Itxd5
20J!hg1l:thd8=. The weakness of
Black's f6 and h7-pawns is prac-
tically immaterial in that posi-
tion.
The game becomes very com-
plicated after: 15.0-0-0 d5 16.
i..xb6 axb617.cxd5 cxd518.tt'lxd5
!:txa2 19 .CDc7 + Wfl 20. tDxe6 'lii'xe6
'lii'f5oo - White's king is
a bit vulnerable indeed, more-
over his extra pawn is not prom-
ising him any serious winning
chances, because of the opposite
coloured bishops present on the
board.
It is better for White to play:
15.a4!?, with the idea to counter
d6-d5 with a4-a5 and to create
an isolated d5-pawn for Black.
White can rely on having a slight
advantage in the endgame in
that case, for example: 15 ... d5
16.a5 ..Itb4 17 . ..Itd2 tt'ld7 (17 ...
..Itxc3 18 . ..Itxc3 tt'ld7 19.0-0-0;1; -
White's couple of powerful bish-
ops provides him with a stable
edge.) 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.tt'lb5 ..Itxd2
20.'lii'xd2 tDc5 21.tDd4 'lii'f7 22.
f3;1; and the defects of Black's
pawn-structure are quite consid-
erable.
15.0-0-0
Now, it is too bad for Black to
play: 15 ... d5 16 . ..Itxb6 i..a3+ 17.
Wc2 axb6 18.cxd5, because
White wins a pawn. In the game
Korneev - Exposito, Seville 2001,
Black played:
15 ... after which White
redeployed his knight to the d4-
square: 16.tDb5 \t>b8 17.tDd4
i.g4 18.f3 19.i..d3;1; and he
had a real advantage in the
endgame, because of his control
over the f5-square. Later, there
followed: 19 ... 20.i..f4 f5
(This attempt by Black to free
himself backfires.) 21.tt'lxf5
i..xf5 .i:te2 23.J:ld2 !:the8
24.i.e4+- and White pressed
easily his material advantage
home.
143
Chapter 10
b) 7 ... g6
8.h4!?
White begins an immediate
attack against Black's g6-pawn.
He has often tried in practice
the move 8.i..e3 too, in order to
prevent Black's counterplay
against the d4-pawn. The criti-
cal line for the evaluation ofthat
move is: 8 ... i..g7 9.h4 0-0 10.h5
and now 10 ... e5 ll.d5 lLld4 12.
lLlxd4 exd4 13.i..xd4 i..xd4 14.
e5, after which White fails
to organize an effective attack
on the kingside. He does not
achieve much in the endgame
after capturing en passant:
15.dxe6 Finally, the game is
unclear after: 11. hxg6 exd4!, for
example: 12.gh 13.liJxd4
lLlxe5!? 14.i..h6?! i..xh6 15J:!.xh6
.l:i.xf2! (M.Golubev).
I therefore recommend 8.h4,
after which Black's king cannot
be fortified so comfortably on the
kingside.
Meanwhile that move has a
certain drawback, in comparison
to 8.i..e3, that is - White does not
control the d4-square. Black
should try to exploit that imme-
diately.
144
8 ... i..g7 9.hS eS
This is the most principled
and practically the only playable
move for Black. He cannot afford
to castle now, because his king-
side is too vulnerable. There are
no other useful moves for him
available, so he should rely on
his only possible counterplay -
the attack against White's d4-
pawn.
See what might happen in
case Black castles short: 9 ...
0-0 10.hxg6 hxg6 1l.i..d3
(White's straightforward offen-
sive against the g6-pawn is his
most aggressive and best line.)
11...lLlxd4 (11...e5 12.i..xg6 i..f5
13.i..xf5 nxf5 14.g4; in case
Black tries to defend his pawn
with the queen - ll ... it is
good for White to follow with:
12.lLlb5) 12.lLlxd4 i..xd4
i..xf2+ 15.i..xg6 J:lg7,
baloo - Hossa, ICC 1998, 16.
and White checkmates in
several moves.
9 ... i..d7. This move is not so
useful for Black, because thus he
closes the leeway for his king to
run away from danger to the
queenside. 10.hxg6 hxg6 II.
lIxh8+ i..xh8, Lyubimov - Freud,
IeS 1997, 12.i..d3. White wins
the g6-pawn; meanwhile Black's
king remains on the d8-square,
because in case of: 12 ...
White would continue with:
13.lLlg5 14.i..xg6+- and
his attack would be absolutely
decisive.
lO.dS lLld4 1l.hxg6
3.d4 d6 4.0l3 tLJc6 5.c4 tLJb6 6.e6 fe 7.tLJc3
Black has tried in practice
here three possibilities in this
critical position: hI) 1l hxg6,
h2) 1l .if5 and h3) 1l .ig4.
hI) 1l ... hxg6
This seems to be a natural
move, but Black's king is doomed
to roam all over the board
after it.
12 . ..xh8+ .ixh8 13.tLJxd4
White cannot achieve too
much after: 13 . .td3 c6 14 . .txg6+
(It deserves attention for him to
play: 14.dxc6!? bxc6 15.c5!? dxc5
16 . .ixg6+ Wd7 17.tLJe4 18.
tLJxc5+ 'i;c7 19. Black's
knight is well placed on the d4-
square indeed, but his king is
rather unsafe.) 14 ... 'it>d7 15 . .ie3
tLJxc4 16 . .ixd4 lZ:lxb2 (16 ... exd4
17.tLJxd4) exd4 18.tLJe4
(18 ... 19.dxc6+ bxc6
Black's king
is under no threats whatsoever
and he has the material advan-
tage too, Kiesel- Schindler, Ger-
many 1999.
13 ... exd4 14 . .id3 e6
This move is aimed at an
opening of a safe haven for the
black king on the queenside - the
c7-square.
15.tLJa4 .if5
15 ... cxd5 16 . .ixg6+ Wd7 17.
tLJxb6+ 18. .if6 19.
cxd5 - Black can hardly com-
plete his development, while:
19 ... (19 .. 20 . .id2)
loses, because of 20 . .id2
2U::(c1 +- and Black's king is ut-
terly defenseless.
It deserved attention for
Black to try 15 ... 'i.t>d7, but White
could have countered that with:
16 . .id2t, with the idea to bring
the rook into action and to start
an onslaught against the enemy
king on the queenside too.
16 . .ixf5 gxf5 'it>d7
We7 19.tLJe5
20.lZle6+ 'it'h8
21..ig5t. White has an over-
whelming attack in a position
with material equality. Later, the
game Pikula - Todorovic, Cetinje
1993, followed with: 21...exd5
(21...tLJxc4 22.dxc6 bxc6
d5 24Jhc4 dxc4 25. 22.
.ixe7 a6 23 . .ixd6+ 24 . .ie5
25.0-0-0+- lie8 26.exd5
'it'a8 27.d6 28.tLJe7+
d3 30..lbd3 .ixb2 31.
tLJa4 32.1bb2 tLJxb2 33.
'it>xb2
145
Chapter 10
and White pro-
ceeded to win with his material
advantage.
b2) 1l ... ..tf5
Black is preparing to castle
long.
12.luxd4 exd4

This move has not been tested
in practice yet; nevertheless it
deserves a great attention. The
exchange ofthe rooks might turn
out to be very favourable for
White, for example he will be
threatening to play and
at some moment.
In answer to 13.gxh7, Black
has tried three moves in tourna-
ments:
It is not good for him to fol-
low with: 13 ... Wd7 14 . ..td3
because White could have ob-
tained a great advantage with:
15 . .ixf5+ 16.l:i.h5 17.
l:i.g5 although he
can also try: 15.4:Je2 l:i.eB 16.4:Jf4
e5 17.4:Jg6 .ixg6 lB. WdB
19 . .ixg6. White has extra ma-
terial and a positional advantage
too. Later, in the game Campora
- Pacorro, Ceuta 1992, there fol-
146
lowed: 19 ... .l:te7 20 . .ig5 ..tf6 2l.
l:th3 ..txg5 22. WcB 23.
24 . ..txf5+ WdB 25.b3 4:Jd7
26.We2 4:Jf6 27.l:th6 nf7 2B.g4
<3i;e7 29J::tah1 ng7 30.3 c5 3l.Wd3
a6 32.a4 b6 33.a5 b5 34.cxb5 axb5
35.a6 4:Jxd5 36J:te6+ Wf8
4:Jb4+ 3B.We4 :a7 39.:hh6 and
Black resigned;
It is not so clear after: 13 ... e6
14.4:Jb5 15.4:Jxd4 exd5+ 16 .
..te3 ..txh 7 17. Wf8 1B.4:Jf5
..txf5 20JhhB+
..txh8 21...th6+ WgB
.ixf6 23.cxd5 ..txb2 24.l:tb1 i.d4
oo
,
because Black has a sufficient
counterplay, despite White's con-
nected passed pawns, Khru-
schiov - B.Nevednichy, Romania
1999. White can try to find an
improvement by playing: 15.
dxe6!? ..txe6 (It is not sufficient
for Black to play: 15 ...
16 . .ie3 0-0-0 17 .4:Jxd4 - White
wins a pawn and follows that
with castling long.) 16. <3i;d7
C16 ... ..tf7+ lB.
.ixe2 and White has managed to
preserve his h7-pawn, which
might become really dangerous
in the arising endgame, for ex-
ample: 1B ... 0-0-0 19 . .id3 4:Jxc4
20.b3 ndeB+ 21.<3i;dl 4:Jb6 22.
.ih6.) 17 . .ig5 1B.0-0-0
19 . .id3 4:Jxc4 20 . .ixc4 .ixc4
21.4:Jxd4 .ixd4 22. .ie6
23. 24 . .l:txd4 l:i.af8oo,
White will hardly be able to win
that endgame;
13 ... - this is a logical
move and Black completes his
development and castles after it.
3.d4 d6 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fe 7.tDc3
14.SLd3 0-0-0 (14 ... i..xd3 15.
dxc3 16. 17.i..h6
i..xh6
20 . .l:th3+-) 15.tDe2 (In case
of 15.tDb5, Black will play 15 ... a6
16.i..xf5 lB.
i..e3 He regains his pawn
with a powerful counterplay
against White's king, for ex-
ample: 20.tDe6 SLb2
2l.l::tb1 l:tdfB 22.tDxfB or
19. 20.tDxf3 SLxb2 2l.
l::tb1 tDxc4oo) 15 ... e5 16.tDg3 e4!
17.tDxe4l:tdeB 1B.f3 SLxh7 19.
0-0 SLxe4 20.SLxe4
22.SLf4, Pletanek - Podse-
dnik, Czech Republic 1993 and
after 22 ... Black has a
powerful counterplay against his
opponent's king for the sacrificed
pawn. So, presently White has
not managed to prove any con-
vincing superiority in the 13.
gxh7 variation.
13 ... l:txh7
Mter 13 ... dxc3 14.l:1xg7
15.bxc3 0-0-0 16.SLe3, White
maintains both a material and
positional advantage.
14.gxh7 'it>d7
Or 14 ... e6 15.tDb5 16.
tDxc7 + 17. lB.
i..xhB 20.
- and White remains with
a solid extra pawn.
15.tDe4 (It deserves attention
for White to play here: 15.SLd3!?
16.tDe2.) 15 ... 16.tDg5
17 .i..d3.
Black's compensation for
the pawn will hardly be suffi-
cient.
b3) 11. .. i..g4
This move pins White's
knight and prepares simulta-
neously Black's castling long.
12.gxh7
It seems attractive for White
to try here the queen-sacrifice:
12.tDxd4!? SLxdl13.tDe6, but still
that line is by far not the best for
him: 13 ... (13 ... i..g414.tDxdB
l:!.xdB 15.l:!.xh7l:!.xh7 16.gxh7 i..f5
17.SLh6 1B.SLxg7 19.
tDb5;1;) 14.tDxg7+ 15.tDxd1
(It is worse for White to play: 15.
hxg6 16J1xhB 17.
tDe6 1B.'it>e1 tDxc4.) 15 ...
hxg6 16JIxhB (16.i..h6
16 ... 17.tDe6 c6. White's
pieces are discoordinated and
despite the favourable material
ratio for him (three pieces for a
queen and a pawn) - he should
better avoid that variation, for
example: 1B.tDc3 19.i..g5
(19.b3 cxd5 20.cxd5 i:.cB+) 19 ...
(19 ... l::tcB 20.0-0-0;1; cxd5?
2l.cxd5 tDxd5 22.i..b5+-; 19 ...
tDxc4 20.dxc6+ bxc6 21.0-0-0
tDb6 22.tDc5+ 20.b3 ILcBoo.
12 ...
Black sacrifices temporarily a
pawn (presently he does not in-
147
Chapter 10
tend to recapture on h7 ... ) and
he opts for some counterplay in
the centre, connected with an
attack against the f3-square as
well as with the undermining
pawn-break e7 -e6.
13 . .ltd3
White has also tried: 13 . .lte3
0-0-0 14 . .ltxd4 exd4 15.lbe4 e6fZ,
but Black obtains a sufficient
counterplay. Later, in the game
Behling - Marcinkiewicz, ICCF
1999, there followed: 16.dxe6
.ltxe6 17:f!tc2 .ltxc4 18 . .ltxc4
lbxc4 (Black's central pawn-
mass is no less dangerous than
White's passed pawns in this
middle game.) 19.0-0-0 d5 20.
lbc5 'f!tc6 21.liJd3 'f!tb6 22.'f!ta4
(23.b3 lbd6 filiJb5)
23 ... .l:Ie2 24.b3 liJd6 25.lbf4 J::txf2
26.lbxd5 'f!tc5+ 27.lbe7+ 'it'd8 28.
l:tc1 'f!tb5 29.'f!txb5 lbxb5 30.lbf5
and here after: 30 .. J:txg2 and
the following eventual develop-
ments: 31..l::r.hg1 lbc3+ 32 . .l::r.xc3
J::txg1+ 33.lbxg1 dxc3 34.liJxg7
.lhh7 35.liJe6+ 36.liJd4+ -
the game should end in a draw.
White was not obliged to cap-
ture on d4; he should have tried
instead to make a good use of
Black's long castling and follow
with: 14.a4!? a5 (Black would
hate to retreat his knight to the
a8-square after a4-a5, while the
tactical com plica tions after:
14 ... .:i.dfS 15.a5 turn out to be not
in his favour, because after the
capture on b6, White is threat-
ening bxa7 and a8'f!t: 15 ... CtJxf3+
16.gxf3 ..I..xf3 17.axb6+-; 15 ...
148
..I..xf3 16.gxf3 liJxc4 17 . ..I..xc4
lbxf3+ +-; 15 ... .l:Ixf3 16.
axb6! a6 17. 'f!ta4)
15.liJb5 lbxb5. This is the
most principled line for Black. (It
is too tentative for him to follow
with: 15 ... e6 16.dxe6 .ltxe6 17.
liJfxd4 exd4 18.lbxd4 .ltxc4 19.
.ltd3 .ltxd3 20. 'f!txd3lbd5;
.ltxfl liJd5 21..ltg5;!;.
Presently, White has managed to
preserve his extra pawn, he has
protected his king quite reliably
and he is ready to exploit the
vulnerability of Black's king, for
example after: 21.. . .ltf6 22 . .ltxf6
lbxf6 23.lbb5 c6 24. 'f!td4.) 16.
axb5 e4. Black wins a piece, but
White can utilize the open a-file
for an attack after: 17. 'f!t d2 (17.
llxa5 exf3 18.gxf3 ..I..f5) 17 ... exf3
18.gxf3 .ltxf3 19.11h4 .ltg4 -
White was threatening to play
.lth3 - 20.f3 .ltf5 21.'f!txa5 'f!te8
22 . ..I..xb6 and Black's kingside
has been devastated.
13 .. 0-0-0 14 . .lte3
It is not good for White to
play: 14.lbxd4 .ltxd115 . .ltf5 exd4
16 . .ltxd7+ 'it'xd7 17.lbxd1lbxc4o
- because his pawn-centre gets
destroyed.
14 . J::tdfB
This move practically forces
White to capture on d4.
15 . .ltxd4 exd4 16.lbe4 .ltxf3
17.gxf3 e6
That is Black's only possible
counterplay, in case of 17 ... c6,
White would follow with 18.l::!.cl.
18.dxe6 'f!txe6 19.'f!te2 d5
Otherwise White would castle
3.d4 d6 4.t'D{3 tDc6 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fe 7.tDc3
long.
20.c5 dxe4 21.cxb6
d3
Black sacrifices a pawn in or-
der to open the long diagonal
for his bishop and to obtain
some counterplay against his
opponent's king.
In the game Campora - Bi-
schoff, Bad Aibling 1982, follow-
ing 22 ... 23.'it>fa, White
managed to preserve his h 7-
pawn and maintained his ad-
vantage, despite the opposite
coloured bishops. Black's central
pawns are easily blocked on the
light squares and White's king is
absolutely safe.

(diagram)

In the game Kindermann -
Fleck, Germany 1982, there
followed: 25.0-0 26.l:.fcl.
White's idea is to place his king
on f1 and to attack on the queen-
side, exploiting the power of
the bishop on e4. 26 ... c6 27.l:.ab1
l:td7 .lth6 29.l:tc4
30.'it>f1 31.l:txc6+ 'it>d8 32.
.l:Ixh6 J:lhxh7 34.
35.ii.xh7 36.
7 and here after the pre-
cise move 37 Jlb3!?, White could
have parried the threats against
his king and his material advan-
tage should have been sufficient
to win the game.
25 .. .ltxc3+
27.'it>e2 c6 28.l:.b3. Black's last
hope to save the game is based
on the presence of opposite
coloured bishops on the board;
nevertheless White's winning
chances remain quite consider-
able.
Conclusion
The sharp risky move 4 ... tDc6 gives White the interesting option
of a restraining pawn sacrifice: 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fxe6 7.tDc3. It
considerably weakens Black's kingside whilst the material advantage
is only temporary.
Black usually employs two defensive plans. The first one is linked
with an immediate return of the extra pawn for the kingside
development - 7 ... e5 B.d5 tDd4 9.0.xd4 exd4 10. e5. It leads in
the main line to a somewhat better endgame for White.
The second plan is 7 .. . g6, when I recommend the relatively rare
move B.h4!? White starts a direct attack to the enemy king allowing
Black's knight to land on the central square d4. In this line the ruined
kings ide of Black is a factor which outweighs his counterplay.
149
Chapter 11 l.e4 tt:Jf6 2.e5 tt:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.tt:Jf3
dxe5
This move was introduced by
A.Alekhine in a simultane game.
Later it was revived by one of the
best players in the 60-70-ies -
the Danish GM Bent Larsen,
who employed it in the Can-
didates matches in 1965 against
B.Ivkov and M.Tal.
Black takes on e5 by his free
will seemingly presenting White
with a tempo for development of
the knight. The idea of this line
however is to play ttJb8-d7, when
White is faced with a choice -
either to allow an exchange on
e5 which leads to simplification,
or retreat with the knight back
to f3. In the latter case Black re-
gains the tempo.
5.ttJxe5
Now the most consistent
150
move seems to be a) 5 ... ttJd7, but
in the arisen position White has
the sacrifice 6.ttJxf7
8.c4. White has dragged out
the enemy king into the centre
of the board and his attack is
quite strong. The ensuing varia-
tions are very complicated and
hazy.
As long as the sacrifice is dan-
gerous for Black, it is sensible for
him to delay ttJb8-d7 in favour of
some developing move which
prevents ttJxf7: b) 5 .. e6, c) 5 . c6
or d) 5 ... g6.
Worse is 5 ... 6. e6
(7 ... was the
only move, although in that case
White gets a classical pawn ma-
jority on the queenside after
9. exf5;!;) 8.
exffi
and that was all in Gofshtein -
Gayraud, Saint Quentin 1998.
a) 5 ... ttJd7
This position became really
popular after the Candidates
Match for the World Champion-
ship - Tal - Larsen, Bled 1965,
3.d4 d6 4.CDf3 de 5.lilxe5liJd7 6.CiJxf7
although White refrained from
the sacrifice there.
6.CDxf7!
We have assumed that the
sacrifice is quite correct after
an extensive analytical work
and rigorous practical testing.
White needs to play extremely
precisely with great inventive-
ness, though ...
6 .'.ii'xf7 7. We6
But not 7 ... g6? e6
9. Afanasiev - N azarenko,
Novokuznetsk 1998.
8.c4CD5f6
8 ... CDb4 9.a3CDc2+ 10.Wd1CDxa1
(10 ... CDf6 Wfl 12.Wc2+-)
because he gets check-
mated: 1l ... 12 . ..tg5+ Wg6
14 . ..te3+ Wg4 15.
B.Wall - J.Wall, Taylors-
ville 1977.
In the game Pace - Briffa, La
Valeta 1996, Black gave back the
piece with: 8 ... CD7f6 9.cxd5+
in order to manage to
trade queens, but after: 10.
CDxd5 1l . ..tc4 c6 12.CDc3
g6 13.0-0 Wd6 14.CDxd5 cxd5
15 . ..tf4+ 16 . ..tb3+-, his po-
sition was hopeless.
9.d5+ 10.
10 . CDe5
White preserves a great ad-
vantage in case of: 10 ... CDb6 11.
CDc3 ..tf5 12.c5+
13 . ..te3+ Wb4 14.CDe4! CDc4 15.
a3+ 16 . ..txc4 b5 17. b4+
18.CDc5+ 19.CDe6+ 20.
21...txb5+-) 12 . ..td3!
..txd3 13. Wc5 14.
Wxc4 (it is somewhat better for
Black to try here: 14 ... Wd615.c5+
Wd7 16. 15.b3+ Wb4 16.
Wxa3 Bechler-
Schirmer, corr. 19B5.
Black does not save the game
after: 10 ... CDbB, because of 11.
c5+! The developments are quite
forced now: 1l ... Wd7 (Black is
totally crushed in the rest of the
variations. See two of them:
13.CDa3
c6 14 . ..tf4+ 15.dxc6
16 . ..td2 17.b4+ Wb6 1B . ..te3+
19.CDb5+ Wxc6
21.t'tc7+ WeB 22.t'txcB+ 'liff7 23 .
..tc4+ Wg6 24.t'te6+-;
f4 13.d6 14.dxc7 t'txc7
15.CDc3 16 . ..tb5+ Wd6 17 . ..te3
t'ta5 lB. t'tc4CDc6 19.b4 t'txb4 20.
..tc5+ 12 . ..tb5+
c6 13.dxc6+ bxc6 14.0-0 t'ta5
151
Chapter 11
(Black loses after: 14 ...
15J:Ld1+ 17.
Ochsner - Sorensen,
Arhus 1985, as well as after:
14 .. Ragjalis - Kaunas,
USSR 1979, 16.
lDfd7 18.
19.1':tc1+ 20.
21. 22.
16 ... a5
'it'xc6 18J:Ld1
19. +- and despite the ap-
proximate material equality,
Black is lost, because of the help-
lessness of his king.) 'it'c7,
Hammar - D.Cramling, Lulea
1980, (in case of
16 ... 'it'b7, White continues with
his attack by playing: 17.b4
18.lDc3 19.b5! This move
wins. That is just one ofthe lines:
19 ... a6 20 . .ttab1 axb5 21.lDxb5
cxb5 22.c6+ and Black loses ma-
terial: 22 ... lDxc6 23Jhb5+
25.fxe3+-) 17.
.l::Ld1+ 18.lDd2 19.1Db3
20.i.e3 21.lDc5
22.lDxd7lDbxd7 23J::txd7! lDxd7.
It is inconceivable where Black
can find an improvement, mean-
while now he falls under a check-
mating attack. e5 25.
26.i.g5+ lDf6 27.11d1+
28.i.xf6+ gxf6 29.
'it>d7 'it'f5
32.g4+ 'it'e4 33. and White
checkmates on the next move.
c5
This is the only move for
Black.
He loses after 1l ... e6? 12.dxe6
13.c5+, or 11... 12.
152
lDxe8 13.lDc3+-.
In answer to 1l ... b6, Carrion
Lara - Rijksen, Alkmaar 1985
White wins with: 12.lDa3! a6
(12 ... 13.c5+ a6
15.cxb6 cxb6 16.lDc4 b5 17
18. 19.1Dd6+
13.c5+
14.ii.xe5+-.
12.lDc3 a6 13.b4!
Now, Black's position is be-
yond salvation after: 13 ... cxb4.
In the variation: 14.c5+
15.lDa4+ 16.lDb2! (Keres)
he has no defence against the
threats lDc4+, or lDd3, for ex-
ample: 16 ... b5 17.lDd3 lDfg4 18.
lDxe5lDxe5 19. 'it'c7 20.
and White's attack progresses
and the material is practically
equal: 20 ... 'it'd7 21.ii.e2 22.
d6 b3+ 23.ii.d2 24.11c1 'it'e8
25.ii.h5+ g6 26.ii.f.3+-.
It is not sufficient for Black
to defend with: 13 ... 14.
0-0-0 lDfg4 (14 ... g6
'it>xe5 16.d6! g5 18.f4+
gxf419.11d5!!+-) 'it'd7 16.
'it'd8. In the game Votava
- Sarkozy, Czechoslovakia 1988,
Black failed to find any satisfac-
tory defence after: 17.d6!+-.
3.d4 d6 4.lt:J{3 de S.CiJxeSlt:Jd7 6.CiJxf7
13 .. 14 . .l:.c1!
This quiet move enables
White to exploit the pin of the
black knight at leisure. There are
plenty of possibilities for Black,
but White's advantage is more
than convincing.
14 ..
14 ... g6 15 . .ltd3. This variation
has been tested in two games:
15 .. 16.0-0 SLh6 17.SLxe5
lS.d6! Wxd6, Duschek -
Gueting, Germany 2001, (1S ...
'(;(xd6 19 . .l.1cd1+-) and here
White's simplest line is: 19.1t:Je4+
'Ot>c6 20.lt:Jxf6 2l.i.e4+ 'Ot>c7
22.lt:Jd5+ 'it>bS 23.bxc5 24.
.l:.b1+-;
or 15 ... lt:Jfg4 16.SLe2 Wc7 (16 ...
It:Jf6 17.0-0 '{;(xb4 lS.1Hel g5
19.i.g3 20.i.h5+-; 16 ... Wd7
17.i.xg4+ It:Jxg4 lS.d6 '(;(xb4 19.
0-0+-) 17.bxc5 ,{;(f6 lS.d6+ WdS
19.dxe7+ 20JId1+ i.d7
2l.'{;(xe7+ SLxe7 22.h3 Sakai -
Jensen, corr. 200l.
14 ... g5 15.i.g3 h5 (the move
15 .. .'thb4, transposes to the
mainline-see 14 ...
g5) 16.bxc5+ '{;(xc5
Szilagyi - Krantz, corr. 1991,
lS.'{;(c2! h4 19.c5+ Wd7 20 . .l.1d1
It:Jf.3+ 21.gxf.3 '{;(xc5 22.i.e5 WdS
23.i.d4 24.a3 '!';ra5 25.d6!
i:Ih6 26.dxe7 + 'it>xe7 27.i.c4 'it>eS
2S.0-0 i.e7 29.l:tfe1 WfB 30Jhe7
Wxe7 3l.i.xf6+ 'it>xf6 32.'!';re4 '{;(c5
33. '!';reS '!';rxc4 34.lt:Je4+ 'it>g7 35.
'!';re5+ Wf7 36.lt:Jxg5+ 'it>g6 37.
i.e6 3S.i:Ixe6+ '!';rxe6 39.
'{;(xe6+ Wxg5 40.f4+.
14 ... cxb4 15.c5+ Wd7 (15 ...
'(;(xc5 16.lt:Jb5+ Wd7 17. 'it>dS
IS. '!';rxe5+-) 16.i.xe5 '{;(xc5 17.
i.e2! bxc3 (17 ... WdB 1B.0-0 bxc3
19.1:.xc3 '!';rb4 20.d6+-) lS.:xc3
,{;(b4 (lS ... 19.0-0 Wd8 20.
.l.1fc1 '!';ra4 21.i.c7+ Wd7 22.
i.b8+-; IS ... '!';rb6 19.0-0 'it>dB
20.IHc1+-) 19.0-0 WdS (19 ... '{;(e4
20.d6 '!';rxe5 2l.dxe7 i.xe7 22.
l:td1 +) 20.d6lt:JeS 2l.dxe7 + fixe7
(21...i.xe7 22.i:Id1+ SLd7 23.
l:tcd3+-) 22.l:.d1+ .id7 23.'!';rd5
It:Jd6 24.SLxd6 '!';rxd6 25. '!';rxb7 l:.bB
26.'!';ra7+-.
15 .id3 g5
15 ... '!';rb2 (15 ... b5 16.0-0 bxc4
17.SLbl g5 18.i.g3+-) 16.0-0
,{;(d2, Rasmussen - Packalen,
Hallsberg 2000, 17.lt:Je4+ It:Jxe4
1B.SLxe4 g5 (1B ... '!';rd4 19J:ice1
Wc7 20.i.xh7+-) 19.5Lg3 ,{;(d4
20.l'Hel +-.
16.i.g3 h5 17.0-0 h4 18.
i.xe5+ 'it>xe5
19.f4+ gxf4 (19 ... Wd6 20.fxg5
It:Jh5 2l..ih7 i.g7 22.lt:Je4+ 'it>c7
23. '!';rxh5 i.b2 24. '!';rf7 i.xc1 25.
'(;(xe7+ 'it>bB 26.11xc1 '!';rb2 27.
.l:.el+-) 20.lt:Je4 '!';rb2 (20 ... lt:Jh5
2l.l:tfel+- Sakai - Petruzzelli,
corr. 2001; 20 .. 5.t'd4 21..!:!.cd1 f.3
22.lt:Jxffi fxg2 23.SLf5+-) 21.lt:Jxf6
153
Chapter 11
(21...exf6 i.d6
23.':'ce1+ 'it>d4 21...3
22.&ce1+ 'iifd6 23.&xf.3 24.
'it>h1 'it>c7 25.d6+- Sakai - Ze-
dnik, corr. 2001) 22.'it>hl h3
23.g3 'it>d6 (23 ... fxg3 24.hxg3
'it>d6 25.lLleS+) 24.lLle8+ 'it>d7 25.
'it>xe8 26.i.g6+ 'it>d8 27.
'it>d7 28.i.c2 29.
Ibf4+-. Black is now forced to
give up his queen, because ofthe
threat 30.i.a4+, but White's at-
tack continues relentlessly.
b) 5 .. e6
This move is uncommon for
the Alekhine - Black needs his
light-squared bishop for counter-
play against the enemy centre.
He should not bar the diagonal
cS-g4 because all the pieces re-
main too passive.

This is the most enterprising.
By attacking f7 White forces the
opponent to lead out the queen
or bring back the knight to f6.
6 ...
6 ... lLlf6 - a cautious, but
rather passive move. 7.i.e3
lLlbd7 S . .id3 lLlxe5 9.dxe5 lLld7
10. Black is lagging behind
154
in development and struggling,
Ruffian 1.0.1 - Hagrid 0.7.56,
France 2002;
6 ... The queen is imped-
ing the development of the f8-
bishop, but enables the possibil-
ity of lLlbS-d7, intending a swap
on e5 followed by the manoeuvre
i.cS-d7-c6 and long castling. In
order to hamper this plan or get
the edge after its realisation
White should play very energeti-
cally. In the game Pinto - Rangel,
corr. 1977 he chose 7.i.d3 lLld7
s.o-o lLlxe5 9.dxe5 i.d7 10.lLla3
(10.i.e4 i.c6 llJld1 0-0-0 12.c4
lLlb4 13.lhdS+ 14.lLlc3
i.xe4 i.c5oo) 1l ...
11.c4lLlb4 12.i.e4lLlc6 (12 ... i.c6
13.i.xc6+ lLlxc6 14.lLlb5 .ucS
15.i.e3 16.lLlxa7! lLlxa7
17.thb7) 13.lLlb5;!; to prevent
long castling of the opponent. On
move 10 Black should have
played the consistent move
1O ... .ic6, when White can hardly
prove an advantage, for example:
1l.i.e4 0-0-0 12.l:.d1 f5 13.exf6
14.c4 C14.lLlc4 i.c5 15.lLla5
lLlc3!) 14 ... lLlb4 15JIxdS+
16.i.e3 17 .i.xc6
Also insufficient is 7.lLlc3 lLld7
S.i.c4 (s.lLlxd5 exd5 f6=t)
S ... lLlxe5 9.dxe5 lLlxc3
(10.bxc3 10 ... Per-
haps White should consider
7.lLld2!? lLld7 (7 ... lLlb4 S.i.b5+ c6
9.i.a4;!;, like in the game Tal -
Larsen which we examine fur-
ther in this chapter) S.lLle4
lLlxe5 9.dxe5 h6 (i.c1-g5 must
be prevented: 9 ... lLlb4 10 . .ib5+
!ii..d7 1l.!ii..g5+-) 10.a3 !ii..d7 1l.c4
ctJb6 12.b4 (planning to meet
!ii..d7-c6 with b4-b5) 12 ... 0-0-0
13.!ii..e3 (13.!ii..d3 14.b5ctJd7,
threatening a fork on e5.) 13 ...
!ii..c6 14.b5 (14 ... 15.

b6 lB. 16.

h6
Black's queen is in a predica-
ment. 7 ... ctJd7? 9.
loses immediately, Wall-
Rasmussen, Tacoma 1970. 7 ...
!ii..e7 0-0 is not much bet-
ter (instead B ... ctJb4 9.!ii..e4;!; is
holding) 9.h4 g6 (9 ... h6?
hxg5 1l.hxg5

lhf7 15.nhB+! 16.ctJxf7+
17.ctJxg5+-) neB
1l.ctJd2ctJb4 Norevall-
Monteiro, Email 200l.
8.ctJc3 ctJb4
Worse is B ... ctJd7?! 9.ctJxd7

12.c3
axb6 14.!ii..e3;!;) Zippy-
Pizza, ICS 1994.

By this move White is defend-
ing the pawn on c2 comfortably.
9 ... c6 10.!ii..a4ctJd7
3.d4 d6 4.ctJ{3 de S.ctJxeS e6
This position occurred in the
Candidates match Tal - Larsen,
Bled (m/6) 1965. Here 1l.a3
ctJd5 12.ctJxc6 stumbles into
12 ... ctJxc3 13.bxc3
14.ctJbB+ 15.ctJc6+ bxc6 16.
:bB+) 13 ... ctJb6 14.!ii..b5 a6+.
M.Ta! suggested 1l.ctJe4
12.f3ctJxe5 13.dxe5 14.a3
ctJd5 15.c4 ctJb6 16.!ii..c2
when after 17.b3 White has a big
positional advantage due to the
striking difference in activity
between the pieces of the two
armies.
The game went on with 1l.
0-0 ctJxe5 12.dxe5 13.
14. (White has no rea-
son to trade queens) 14 ...
15.a3 (White could have secured
the edge by 15.f4!? c3 fol-
lowed by - V.Bagirov) 15 ...
ctJd5, when Tal threw in a piece:
16.ctJb5!? 16 ... cxb5 17.
1B.c4 to win after
1B ... (lB ... ctJb6 rt;c7
20.c5 2l.cxb6 axb6
na5 23. 1B ... ctJf4 19.
b6 20. 19.cxd5 20.g3
Black failed to
finish development until the very
end: 22J:td1 23.
24. 25.

29.:i.ac1 30.!ii..e3
b5 32.!ii..xb5
33.f4 1-0.
c) 5 .. c6
(diagram)
In distinction to the previous
line, the play is calm here except
155
Chapter 11
the cases when Black is trying
bluntly to take over the initia-
tive. Three continuations have
been tried in practice: cl) 6 ..
.li.f5, c2) 6 .. g6 and c3) 6 .
tLld7.
cl) 6 .. .li.f5 7.0-0 tLld7
Black has to try trading
knights without wasting time.
In the event of 7 ... e6, Arribas
- A.Garcia, Cuba 1995, B.c4 tLlb4
(B ... f6 9.cxd5 fxe5 10.dxc6 tLlxc6
Il.dxe5;t) White parries the
threats and completes develop-
ment: 9.tLla3 .li.d6 10.tLlf3 b6
11..lii.g5 'ffic7 12. 'ffib3 0-0
tLlSa6 14 . ..td2;t - Black's knights
are clumsily placed.
To S ... tLlb6 White could ex-
ploit the delay of tLld7 by 9.tLlc3
tLlSd7 10.f4. In a number of varia-
tions the bishop on f5 could be
captured, and in any case White
is gaining space in the centre
and on the kingside. 10 ... ..te7
11..li.e3 tLlxe5 (11 ... 0-0 12.g4+-;
11...c5? 12.tLlxd7 tLlxd7 13.g4+-;
12 .. 13.dxc5+-) 12.fxe5
0-0 13.d5t and d5-d6.
8.tLlf3 h6
Black secures to his bishop an
active position on the important
156
diagonal.
He has tested also B ... e6 9.c4
tLlb4?! (better is 9 ... tLl5f6 10.tLlh4
.li.g6 Il.tLlxg6 hxg6 12 . .li.f4;t)
10.a3 tLlc2 (yet another example
of risky play in the opening)
11.l'ta2 tLlxd4. Black wins a pawn,
but lands in a difficult position.
(Following 11...c5, Vogt - Loeffier,
Graz 2002, White could have
achieved a big edge with 12.dxc5
ttJf6 13.b4 14 . ..txdl tLlxb4
15.axb4 .ixbl 16 . .ia4+ <:J;;e7
17.lId2+-, or 12 ... Nxc5 13.b4
. .ixdl tLlxb4. The knight
has stuck in the centre so Black
has to go for unfavourable com-
plications: 15.axb4 .ixbI16Jld2!
tLld7 17 . .ia4 0-0-0 IS.I:!.fdl+-.)
.li.xbI14 . .li.g5
f6 15Jhbl fxg5 To
16 ... ..te7 White can capture on e6
to win the pawn on g5 too; in-
stead he preferred a domination
without regaining material:
..tf6 IB.b4 19.:r.ad2
tLlf8 20.lId6 cxb4 21.axb4 h5 22.
c5 g4 23.tLld2 <:J;;f7 24.tLle4l:1h6 25.
..tc4 <:J;;gS 26.tLlxf6+ 1:f.xf6 27.b5
'it>hS 2S.c6 bc 29.bxc6 a5
'ffif7 31.1IdB lIxdB 32.lIxdB+-,
when Black is unable to cope
with the threats and c6-
c7, Carlsen - Madsen, Trond-
heim 2004.
An alternative is S ... g6 9.c4
tLlc7 10.tLlc3 ..tg4 11...te3 ..tg7
.l:tbB 13Jladl b5 14.cxb5
tLlxb5 15.tLlxb5 ..txf3 16 . ..txf3
cxb5 17 . .if4 Here the game
Weeks - Wohl, Gold Coast 1999
finished in a draw, but Black
would have been unable to avoid
material losses after lS . .:tcl.
9.a3
Depriving the enemy knight
ofb4.
9 e6 10.c4 tD5f6

White is not letting Black's
bishop on an active position (the
game Luther - Loeffler, Austria
2002 saw 1l.tDc3 11 ...
tDh5 (following 12.tDc3
0-0 13.d5! White's initiative is
increasing: 13 ... cxd5 14.cxd5
exd5 15.tDxd5;!;. Black cannot
take on d5 in view of the double
attack of the queen to b7 and
f5. Therefore White could at
least trade his knight for the e7
bishop, gaining a lasting advan-
tage due to the bishop pair;
14 ... g5 tDh5 16.tDd4 tDxg3
17.hxg3) 12.i.e3 (Black
has achieved his goal, but now
the knight is awkwardly placed)
13.tDc3 0-0 (13 ... tDf4 14.d5 cxd5
15.cxd5 tDxe2+ 16. 0-0
17.tDd4;!;) 14.d5 exd5 15.cxd5
c5 16.tDb5;!;. The play is devel-
oping to White's favour. His
pieces are considerably more ac-
tive.
3.d4 d6 4.tiJ{3 de 5.0xe5 c6 6.i.e2
c2) 6 ... g6 7.c4
7 . tDc7
7 ... tDb6 is seldom seen. White
had the edge in the game Gilles
- Lacroix, Belgium 1992 after
S.a4 9.0-0 0-0 10.a5 tD6d7
11.tD3 e5 12.d5 cxd5 13.cxd5 tDffi
14.tDc3 (14 ... e4!? 15.tDg5
:teS 15.h3

8.tDc3 0-0
9 ... tDd7 10.tD3 transposes to
the line 6 ... tDd7 7.tD3 g6.
9 ... c5 10.tD3 cxd4 11.i.xd4 ffi
12.0-0 0-0 Kocsis -
Mozes, Sarospatak 1995.
10.0-0 c5
10 ... tDd7 11.tD3leads again to
the line 6 ... tDd7 7.tD3 g6.
11.tDf3 cxd4
157
Chapter 11
i.e5! 4:Je6 14.4:Jd5 kteB
e6 16.4:Je3 G.Hernandez -
Miles, Linares 1994. White's
pieces are clearly more active.
Black finds it difficult to com-
plete development. In the game
he chose to buy himself off with
some material and gave in the
queen for a rook and bishop.
16 .. 4:Ja6 (16 ... i.g7 is more natu-
ral, but Black is struggling after
17Jiad1 "f6 1B.SiLd6 4:Ja6 19.4:Jg4
"f5 20.4:Jfe5!? 4:Jxe5 21.SiLxe5
SiLxe5?? 22.4:Jh6+-; 21...4:Jc5 22.
"b5 4:Jd7 23.l:txd7 a6 b5
25."d1) 17 . .l::i.fd1 4:Jxe5 lB.
ltxdB ltxdB 19. b6 20.b4
4:Je4 21.e5 bxe5 22.bxe5 i.g7
23 . .l::i.e1 i.b7 24.i.d3 4:Jf6 25.SiLa6
ltabB 26.SiLxb7 l:txb7 27.g3. It
is clear now that Black has not
enough compensation for the
queen.
e3) 6 ... 4:Jd7
Perhaps this is the most flex-
ible move. It keeps different op-
tions open. Its only drawback in
comparison to 6 ... i.f5 is that the
knight is temporarily barring the
way to the bishop on cS.
7.4:Jf3!?
15S
We have mentioned already
that White often avoids ex-
changes because Black's knights
are hampering each other.
7 ... g6
In case of 7 ... b5 (aiming to
secure the knight on d5) White
nonetheless succeeds in ousting
the knight with the help of a
flank break-through. The game
De la Paz - Baburin, Havana
1999 saw further s.o-o g6 (S ... e6
9.a4 b4 10.c4 4:J5f6 11.SiLf4;t;
Szieberth - Varga, Budapest
2001), when White should have
continued with 9.a4 b4 10.c4 bxc3
11.bxc3;t;.
The natural move 7 ... 4:J7f6
turned out to be a novelty in the
game Najer - Bauer, Internet
2004. Its idea is to develop the
bishop to f5 after all. After S.
0-0 i.f5 9.4:Jh4 i.g6 10.c4 4:Jb6
11.4:Jc3 e6 12.g3 4:Je4 13.4:Jxg6
4:Jxc3 14.bxc3 hxg6
the bishop pair advantage and
semi-open files provide White
with the better prospects. The
game went on: 15 ... 16.h4
c5 17.i.f3 cxd4 1S.cxd4 i.e7
O-O? (19 ... was in-
dispensable, e.g.: 20.SiLxb7
21.SiLb2 "xc4? 22. 4:Jc4 23.
i.xg7+-; 22.SiLxg7 l::th7
23.SiLa1 "xc4;t;; 22.
23.cxb5 SiLf6 24.SiLc6+ ..t>fS 25.
20.c5 4:Jd5 and
White pressed home the extra
pawn.
B.O-O SiLg7 9.e4 4:Je7
From here the knight retains
open the route to e6 and supports
the break b7-b5. Alternative re-
treats are:
9 ... ttJ5b6 10.a4 ttJf6 (10 ... a5
11. 11.a5 ttJbd7 12.ttJc3
0-0 13.Ji.f4t;
9 ... ttJ5f6 10.ttJc3 0-0 11.h3
ttJb6. Black misplaces the knight
in order to let the bishop out to
f5. (Practice has seen also 11...b6
12.Ji.f4 Ji.b7 13. l:teS 14Jlad1
ttJf8 15.l:tfe1 e6 16. - Black
is solid, but passive, Roos -
Bruns, Selestat 2000. In the
game Fox - P.Nunn, Kilkenny
1996 Black firstly took measures
against i.f4: 11 ... 12.Ji.e3
ttJb6 13J1c1 Ji.f5 14. l:ladS
15Jlfd1 ttJe416.ttJxe4 i.xe417.a4
Ji.f5 lS.a5 ttJcS b6 20.
axb6 axb6, when 21.l:lalt is in
White's favour. White had the
interesting option of 13.a4!?,
intending to meet 13 ... a5 by
l1d5.) 12.a4 Ji.f5 13.
i.f4 ttJcS Black is sig-
nificantly cramped, J .Polgar -
Visser, Amsterdam 1990.
1O.ttJc3 0-0
10 ... ttJf6 allows the opponent
to develop actively the bishop to
f4: 0-0 12.l:.d1 ttJceS 13.
Ji.f4 ttJd6 14.h3 a6 (This weaken-
ing of the queenside is not nec-
essary. Black's position is un-
pleasant even without it because
ofthe lack of counterplay.) 15.a4
ttJh5 16.Ji.h2 i.h6 (the previous
move was a mistake. Black
should have repaired it by going
back 16 ... ttJf6) 17.c5 ttJeS (17 ...
ttJf5 lS.g4+-) lS.d5
i.d7 20.ttJe5 cxd5 21.ttJxd5+-.
3.d4 d6 4.ttJ{3 de S.tzJxeS c6 6 . .i.e2
The break-through in the centre
was decisive in Delchev - Du-
bois, Andorra la Vella 1999.
1l.Ji.e3
1l ... ttJf6
A calm move. Black re-
nounces plans of immediate
breaks in the centre like 11...
c5 or 11. .. e5. Let's investigate
them:
11 ... c5, Joanovits - Dubois,
Toulouse 1995, leads to difficul-
ties after 12.dxc5 i.xc3 (12 ... ttJe6,
Dunis - Payen, Marseilles 2001,
13. ttJexc5 13.bxc3
ttJe6 14.c6 bxc6 15.ttJd4.
11...e5 gives White a power-
ful passed pawn in the centre
without due compensation. (The
insertion of 11 ... a6 12.a4 is not
helpful. Mter 12 ... e5 13.d5 cxd5
14.cxd5 the weakening of b6 is
tangible: 14 ... ttJeS 15.d6 h6 16.
.l:.c 1 ttJef6 17.h3 Apicella -
Miles, Linares 1995. The game
saw further 17 ... l:.eS IS.
ttJbS ttJc6 20.i.b6
21.i.c4 e4 22.ttJd2 :e5 - 22 ... .i.f8
23.ttJd5 ttJxd5 24.i.xd5+- - 23.
ttJd5 ttJeS 24.ttJc7 ttJxc7 25.dxc7,
and the pawn on seventh rank
decided the game: 25 ... 26.
159
Chapter 11
ttJf1 ttJa5 27 . .l:td8+ .i.f8
ttJxc4 30J:lcd1 .l:te6
31.a5 i..g7 32.ttJe3 .l:tc6 33.ttJd5
34. .l:tc2 35. e3 36.
i..xe5 37.fxe3, Black re-
signed) 12.d5 cxd5 13.cxd5 ttJb6
14.d6 ttJe6 (14 ... ttJe8 15.d7 i..xd7
16.i..c5) 15.a4 i..d7 (15 ... ttJd4 16.
ttJxd4 exd4 17.i..xd4 18.
i..xg7 . .l:tfxd1 Wxg7 20.a5
ttJd7 21.i..f3 ttJe5 22 . .i.d5) 16.a5
ttJc8 17.i..c4 i..c618.i..xe6 fxe619.
ttJg5 with a small edge, Kreiz-
berg - Zilberman, Ramat Aviv
2000. 17. was worth consid-
eration, intending after 17 ... i..c6
to defend the pawn on d6 by
18.lHdl.
The leisurely plan 1l ... b6
12. i..b7 (12 ... lIe8 13.l:!ad1
i..b7 14.i..h6 Herrera - Rodri-
guez Boado, Mondariz 2000) al-
lows White to continue calmly
with centralisation, 13.i..h6 ttJe8
14J:tad1 ttJdf6 15.h3 Zurla -
Ferretti, Robecchetto 1994.
12.h3 ttJce8
To 12 ... i..f5, Buchenau - Ju-
gelt, Oldenburg 2000, White
could allow the simplification
ttJe4 14.ttJxe4 i..xe4 15.
l:!ad1 b5 16.b3, maintaining
some edge. He could also think
about 13.ttJh4 i..d7 and only then
14. d2, preventing the trade of
knights.
12 ... a6 b5 only weak-
ens Black's queenside. White is
better after 14.ttJe5 i..b7 15.i..f3
Beerbaum - Prosch, Mecklen-
burg 1997.
13. ttJd6
160
White is fully mo-
bilised and ready for attack. His
spatial advantage is ominous.
14 . b5. This attempt to organise
counterplay weakens the square
c6. (14 .. J:tb8 15.d5 cxd5 16.i.xa7
dxc4 17 .i..xc4 :ta8 18.i..c5;
14 ... 15.i..f4 ttJh5 16.i..h2)
15.cxb5 cxb5 16.d5 a6 17.ttJe5
i..b7 18.i..f3 ttJd7 19.ttJc6 i.xc6
20.dxc6 ttJe5 21.ttJd5 ttJxf3+
(21...ttJxc6? 22.i..c5+-) 22.gxf3
Nunn - Ghinda, Hamburg 1984.
White's threats (mostly 23.c7
and 23.i..g5) are very dangerous.
Black is in for a difficult defence.
White's weakness on the king-
side is of no significance. The
game went on with 22 . :tc8
23.i..g5 l:!e8 24 . .l:tfe1 i..f8 25.
(25.c7 was safely winning
the exchange for a pawn, but the
text move is better. Now the
threat c7 is even stronger) 25 .
b4 f6 27.i..f4 Wf7 28.
ttJb6 e5 (28 .. J:tc7 29.i..xd6 exd6
Wg7 31.ttJd51he1+ 32.
J:;txe1+-) 29.ttJxc8+- 30.
.tIxd6 (of course the bishop could
have retreated) 30 ... i..xd6 31.
exf4 32.:txe8 Wxe8 33.
34. Wf7 35.c7
37.Wh2
38. - the checks are
over so Black resigned.
d) 5 ... g6
This idea belongs to Bent
Larsen. The fianchetto of the
dark squared bishop is one of the
most typical motives in similar
positions. Black is doing it imme-
diately; moreover that he should
play the usual preparatory move
c7 -c6 only in answer to an attack
against his knight on d5.
6.g3
This move became fashion-
able in the middle of the 90ies of
the last century. Black now has
two good alternatives: dl) 6 ...
tiJd7 and d2) 6 ...
It is not so precise for him to
follow with 6 ... In case Black
plans to fianchetto his dark
squared bishop, he had better do
it outright and not get distracted
by other ideas. Meanwhile, in-
stead of the natural plan with-
White can play the more
energetic line: 7.c4 tiJb4
(this sharp variation has been
tested in games between comput-
ers ... ) 8 ... tiJ8c6 (S ... tiJ4c6
10.tiJxc6 bxc6 11.0-0 (11.
3.d4 d6 4.tiJ{3 de 5.CDxe5 g6 6.g3
tiJc3 13.0-0
0-0 14 . .l:tadv,o) 12 . .l:!.d1
(12 ... 14.
tiJc3, threatening tiJd5)
14.tiJc3 0-0 15J1d2;!; and
despite Black's extra pawn, his
position is clearly worse, because
it is inconceivable how he can
complete his development.) 9.
tiJxc6tiJxc610.d5 (10 ... i..e4?
l1.lIgl 12.cxd5 13.
Comet - Sos, Lima 2002)
11.c5! tiJe5 12. 13.
tiJd2!. White is threatening 14.
f4 tiJd7 l5.h3 l6.g4+-, more-
over Black's b7-pawn is under at-
tack.
dl) 6 ... tiJd7
In case Black intends to play
like that, without the prelimi-
nary move c7-c6 (and that might
be purposeful for him in case he
intends to follow with c7-c5 at
some moment), he should do it
immediately, because otherwise
White will attack his knight with
the move and c7 -c5 will
become impossible unless Black
retreats his knight on d5 before-
hand.

White's attempt to play
analogously to line-d2 fails - af-
ter 7.ttJf3 S . .i.g2, Black plays
S ... c5 (about 8 ... 0-09.0-0 c6, Mo-
roz - Miroshnichenko, Alushta
1999, 10.lIe1;\; - see line d2) and
he obtains more than sufficient
counterplay, for example; 9.0-0
0-0 10.c3 cxd4 l1.ttJxd4 ttJ7f6
12J:te1'ueS, Finkel- Loeffler, Tel
161
Chapter 11
Aviv 1995. It is quite unclear how
White's play can be improved, for
example after 13."b3, Black
plays: 13 ... e5 (13 ... a5 14.a4;t)
14.4:Jf3 "c7 and if 15.4:Jg5, then
15 ... h6 16.i.xd5 (16.4:Je4 lDxe4
17.i.xe4 4:Jf6 lS . .1l.g2 l:i.bS and
i.cS-e6) 16 ... 4:Jxd517."xd5 hxg5
lS.i.xg5 and Black's compensa-
tion for the pawn is satisfactory,
for example: lS ... i.e6 19. f6
20 . .1l.e3 "f7 21.lDd2 fS 22.a4 i.d5
23. "e2 f4 24.i.c5 b6 25.i.b4 e4co
- because the light squares
around White's king are ex-
tremely vulnerable.
White therefore should not
retreat his knight away from the
e5-square and he should better
continue with his development
with 7.i.g2.
7 .. 4:Jxe5 8.dxe5 c6 9.0-0
i.g7 i.e6
It is a bit sharper for Black to
try: 10 ... h5!? He can follow that
with the move i.cS-g4, or open
the h-file with h5-h4. 1l.c44:Jb6
12.4:Ja3 (so that the e5-pawn is
not hanging after "d4) 12 ... i.g4
13.f3 i.e6 14.f4 "cS 15.b3 h4
16.4:Jc2 hxg3 17.hxg3 i.h3 lS.
4:Je3;t and it turned out later that
Black could not make any good
use of the open h-file. White ex-
changed queens and then his
space advantage and the un-
favourable placement of Black's
bishop on g7 became quite tell-
ing factors: lS ... "e6 19.i.b2
0-0-0 20Jiad1 i.xg2 21..l:1xdS+
lixdS 22.'it'xg2lDd7 23.g4 4:Jc5 24.
"d7 26.'it'f3
162
4:Jxd3 2S.i.a3 e6
29.g5 30.4:Jc2 b6 (the ex-
change on b5 is of course un-
favourable for Black, but other-
wise he cannot untrap his knight
from the d3-square) 4:Jc5
32.i.xc5 bxc5 33.'it>d3 and White
succeeded in winning that end-
game, Glek - Loeffier, Germany
1994.
1l.b3 "c8
Or 1l ... 12 . .1l.b2;t - White
will easily manage to protect his
e5-pawn, then he will follow with
4:Jf3, or 4:Je4 and later he will play
c2-c4. The chances of Black find-
ing any effective counterplay are
just miniscule.
12.i.b2 i.h3 13.4:Jd2 i.xg2
14.'it>xg2 0-0 15.c4 4:Jc7
16.4:Je4;!;. White's space ad-
vantage is practically unopposed.
The game Wolff - de Firmian,
New York 1996, continued with:
16 ... "f5 17 .f4 4:Je6 (Black is
forced to play like that if he
wished to preserve his queen on
the f5-square, or 17 ... 1IadS lS.
g4t, followed by f4-fS.) 18."f3 (It
is too bad for White to play: lS.g4
lDxf4+ 4:Jxe2+ 20.gxf5
gxf5 fxe4-+.) 18 ... h5
19.h3 20J:tael (Black can
counter 20J:tad1 with 20 ... l:tad8,
but not 20 ... h4 hxg3
22.lbxg3, because his queen gets
trapped. Now, White should bet-
ter continue with: lUe8 -
20 ... lbd4 21. -
l:txe7 22.lbd6. That is the point-
Black must give his extra piece
back: 22 ... lbxf4+ 23.gxf4
24.l:tae1 t, with the idea to follow
with f4-f5 and White's initiative
is very powerful. After the move
in the game, White was slightly
better indeed, but the fight re-
mained extremely sharp.) 20 ..
.l:.ad8. It is not so easy now for
White to create any threats
against his opponent's queen af-
ter that move, because Black has
additional resources - lbe6-d4
and in answer to lbe4-g3.
(In case of 20 ... h4, White plays
and Black cannot capture
on g3 anyway.) h4 22.g4
(It is worse for White to follow
with: lbd4 23.g4 lbxf3
24.gxf5 gxf5 25.lbc5 lbd2+; 23.
l:txd4 t - because it is Black
who has the initiative.) 22 ...
lbxf4+ (or 23 ...
.l:.d3 25.:te3 lbxh3 26.
24.lbc5
b6 (or 25 ... g5 26.
gxf4 27 .g5 28.
f6 30J:Hg2
and White is threatening
lbc5-e6; 27 ... -
White's initiative is very power-
ful) 26.lbe4 lld3 27 JIe3 lbxh3
(28. 29.
28 ..
3.d4 d6 4.lb{3 de 5.0.xe5 g6 6.g3
f5 (30 ... f6
32Jhf6 exf6 33.lbxf6+
34.exf6 :txf6 31.
(31.lbg5 fxg4+
33.lbxe6 l:tf3+) 31. .. .l:.xe3
32. fxe4 (32 ... 33.
gxf5) 33 . .l:txf8+
and there happened a transfer to
a queen and pawn endgame,
which was clearly better for
White and he won it after: 34 ...
c5? (o35 ... b5) 36.a3
a6 37.a4 39.a5
40.axb6 41. '>t>g8
42. 43. 44.e6
and Black resigned .
d2) 6 . 7
7 ... 0-0
This is Black's most natural
defence.
About 7 ... c6 8.0-0 0-0 - see
7 ... 0-08.0-0 c6.
7 ... lbc6? 8.lbxc6 bxc6 9.c4 lbb4
10.a3+- Kristjansson - Nielsen,
Copenhagen 2003.
After the aggressive line for
Black: 7 ... lbb4 8.lbf3 (He has
an interesting alternative here:
8 ... 9.c3
. .l:i.xd1lbc2 12.lba3 lbxa1
163
Chapter 11
13.i.f4;!;.) 9.ttJa3 ttJBc6 10.0-0
0-0 H.c3 ttJd3? White can obtain
a great advantage with: 12.
ttJh4.
8.0-0 c6
Black's attempts at compli-
cating matters end up in White's
favour after: B ... ttJb4, Radovano-
vic - Trifunovic, Richmond 1995,
9.ttJf3 iH5 10.ttJa3 ttJBc6 1l.c3
ttJd5 (11...ttJd3?! 12.ttJh4) 12.
ttJh4;!;, or 8 ... c5 9.dxc5 ttJb4 10.
(10 ... ..ixe5
ttJxc212.i.h6 ttJxal14.
i.xfB WxfB 15.ttJd2 ttJa6 16.ttJe4
i.e6 17Jlxa1 1B.b4;!;) H.c3
as it was played in the
game Plaskett - Valvo, New York
1979. White could have main-
tained his advantage with the
help of the variation: 12.ttJxg6!
hxg6 13.cxb4 14.a3
15.ttJc3 ttJc6 16.ttJd5 17.
i.g5 - and his activity in the
centre spells danger for Black.

9 ... i.f5
Among the other possibilities
for Black I will mention:
9 ... ttJd7 10.ttJf3 b5 (or 10 ...
ttJ7f6 H.c3 a5 12.a4 i.f5 13.
ttJbd2 ttJb6 14.ttJb3;!;. In the game
164
Spraggett - Brodeur, Quebec
1983, there followed: 14 ... ttJc4
15.h3 ttJd5 16.i.f1 ttJd6 17.ttJc5 h5
1B.ttJh4 e6 19.ttJd3 ttJe4. Black
cannot make any pawn-breaks
and the activity of his pieces is
just temporary. 20.ttJf3 g5. This
aggression on the kingside is
not justified. 21..:ta3 g4 22.
hxg4 hxg4 23.ttJfe5 f6. Black's g4-
pawn is doomed anyway. 24.
ttJxg4 Wfl 25.i.g2 ttJd6 26 . .:f.al
.:f.hB 27.ttJe3 ttJxe3 2B.i.xe3 and
White gradually materialized his
positional and material advan-
tage.) 1l.ttJc3 (White should pre-
fer to develop his knight to the
d2-square. It can go to e4 from
there as well, but Black will be
deprived ofthe possibility to ex-
change it. Meanwhile, White
might like to play c2-c4 with a
knight on d2 at some moment.)
11...e6 (it is better for Black to
exchange on c3, doubling White's
pawns) 12.ttJe4 13.c3 i.b7
Lhagvasuren - Hoang
Thong, Singapore 1995;
or 9 ... i.e6 (still, the f5-square
is preferable for that piece, be-
cause the bishop is quite vulner-
able on the e6-square) 10.c3 ttJd7
1l.ttJd3 i.f5 12.ttJa3 i.xd3 13.
e6 14.ttJc2 15.a4;!;.
Later, in the game Fercec -
Visintin, Nova Gorica 1997,
Black managed to push e7 -e5
indeed, but White's couple of
bishops turned out to be ex-
tremely powerful after that:
15 ... a5 16.ttJa3 e5
18.dxe5 ttJxe5 19. h5 20.i.g5
3.d4 d6 4./1jf3 de S.ttJxeS g6 6.g3
21..l:.ae1 'd7 22.h3 /1jb6 23. him to play: 16 ... /1jb6 17./1jxe5
..ltf4 /1jec4 24./1jxc4 /1jxc4 25. lhe5 1B . ..ltf41:Ixe1+ It
lhe2 26 . .u.xe2 'd3 27 . ..ltfl and looks like Black's position is
Black lost a pawn. quite acceptable, but after: 17.
10.c3 /1jd7 11./1jf3 :e8 .l:.xe5! :xe5 1B . ..ltf4 /1jd3 19./1jxe5
Following 1l ... .ltg4, White in /1jxe5 20.g4! ..lte6 21.g5 White's
the game Martinovic - Schroll, advantage becomes overwhelm-
Austria 2000, continued with: 12. ing. Black's knight is deadly
'b3 'b6 13./1jbd2 l:tfeB 14./1jc4 pinned and he is faced with
16./1jxf3;!;. The insurmountable difficulties:
inclusion of the moves and 21.. . ..ltf5 23.'Jith1!
was hardly necessary for (White thus avoids the trap ... )
White. It would have been stron- 23 ... 'it>g7 24 . .l:.e1 f6 25.gxf6+ 'it>xf6
ger for him to play 12./1jbd2;!; and
h2-h3, forcing the exchange on 13./1jc4 14./1jce5;!;
f3.
12./1jbd2 /1j7f6
Some experts suggested here
12 ... e5!? (the lines 12 ...
13./1jc4 or 12 ...
13./1jc4 .l:.adB 14. 'b3 /1j7f6 15.
lbce5;!; are analogous to the main
line, while after: 12 ... ..ltg4 13.h3
Black must either present his
opponent with the two bishop
advantage: 13 ... 1Lxf3 14./1jxf3 e5
15.dxe5/1jxe5 16./1jxe51he5 17.
.l:Ixe5 ..ltxe5, Holl- Keller, Bayern
2000, lB. or he must enter
unfavourable complications for
him: 13 ... 1Lf5 14.g4 i.d3 15.c4
/1jb4 16. 'b3 'b6 17.a3 /1jc2
1B.thd3 lbxa1 19.b4;!;) 13./1jc4
(13 ... exd4 14 . .u.xeB+
15./1jd6 16./1jxf5 17.
lbxd4;!;; 13 ... i.g4 14.dxe5 /1jxe5
15.lbcxe5 .u.xe5 16.Ii.xe5 i.xe5
.lixf3 18.i.xf3 lbb6 19.
i.e3;!;) 14.dxe5lbxe5 (Black fails
to regain his pawn after: 14 ... 1Lg4
15.i.f4 i.xf3 16.J..xf3;!;) 15./1jcxe5
i.xe5 16.c4lbb4 (it is stronger for
White's knight has occupied
the important strategical outpost
- the e5-square. It can only be
ousted from there at the expense
of the weakening of Black's
kings ide pawns. Meanwhile,
White can also repel Black's
pieces from the centre with the
help of c2-c4, or h2-h3 followed
by g3-g4. These factors as well
as White's space advantage
make his position much more
promising.
In answer to Anand's recom-
mendation - 14. .l:.adB 15.
lbce5,just like in the game, Black
can play: 15 ... lbg4, trading a
165
Chapter 11
couple of knights, after which
16.lbh4 is not so sensible, be-
cause Black's knight on g4 is not
hanging and the bishop can sim-
ply go back.
14 lbg4!
The exchange of a pair of
knights would be in favour of the
defending side, because of its
lack of space - that is Black. It is
however worse for him to try the
move 14 ... lbd7, with the same
idea, because of: 15.lbxf7
16.g4 e6 17.gxf5 exf5.
15.lbh4
Black is now forced to com-
promise his pawn-structure, be-
cause his knight on g4 is hang-
ing.
15 .. lbxe5 16.lbxf5 gxf5 17.
dxe5e6
Black should refrain from the
line: 17 ... i.xe5 18.i.xd5 cxd5
19.thd5 i.g7 because
he loses a pawn.
Black's position is
solid enough (White cannot
break through easily on either
side of the board), but it is still
too passive. In the game Anand
- Adams, Linares 1994, there
followed: IS ... lbe719.f4 (19.c4 c5
L1lbc6) 19 . lbd5 20.c4 lbe7 21.
i.e3 lladS 22.b4 l:td7 23.
lbcS! (Black is trying to defend
his pawn on a7 without creating
additional weaknesses - in case
of23 ... b6, White will follow with
24.a4! L1a5.) 24.a4 l:tedS 25.a5.
White advances gradually on the
queenside and in order to obtain
some counterplay Black tried:
25 .. f6! 26.exf6 i.xf6, weakening
his e6-pawn indeed, but thus
he activated his dark squared
bishop and he obtained some
counterplay along the d-file.
27.l:tabl i.c3 2S.l:tf1 (28.l:tec1
i.d2!) 2S .. l:td3 i.d4 30.
i.xd4 l:t3xd4?! (Black had to
play here 30 .. JI8xd4!;l; - in fact
both players made several mis-
takes in a row for some time ... )
31.1Uel? (31.i.d5! l:t4xd5 32.
cxd5 exd5) (3 1.. Jhc4!
32Jhe6 32.i.d5! "f!fg7?
(32 ... l:t4xd5 33.cxd5 exd5 34.
l:te5 - Anand) 33.l:te5!+- l:t4xd5
34.cxd5 cxd5 35.g4! lbe7 36.
l:txe6 fxg4 37."f!fh411d7 3S.!lbel
(38 ... lbf5 39. "f!fh5 40.
"f!fg5+) 39.f5 and Black resigned.
Conclusion
The main idea of the Larsen variation 4 ... dxe5 is to propose a
trade of knights by lbb8-d7. Then White should either accept simpli-
fication or retreat with the knight. In general White is better off when
166
3.d4 d6 4.Cfjf3 de 5.4.lxe5 g6 6.g3
maintaining tension with Cfjf3. In that case he maintains a spatial
advantage.
The immediate 5 ... Cjjd7 in answer to 5.4.lxe5 allows a sacrifice on
{7, when Black's king is dragged out to e6. Analytically and practi-
cally Black has a hard time in that branch. Our investigation does
not show an acceptable defence for him.
Beside 5 ... Cjjd7 we consider in this chapter 5 .. . e6, 5 ... c6 and 5 .. . g6.
All of them prepare Cfjb8-d7.
The first one - 5 .. . e6 - boxes in the bishop on c8. By 6. 'fif3 (which
is harmless in the other lines due to White forces back to f6
the d5-knight. The other defences of {7 by the queen are to the detri-
ment of development.
The move 5 ... c6 bolsters up the knight on d5 and prepares Cfjb8-
d7. We recommend with two possible plans for Black - to de-
velop the bishop to f5 followed bye7-e6, or fianchetto the other one
on g7. In both cases White plays c2-c4, finishes development and
maintains an edge due to his spatial advantage.
Finally Black could play 5 ... g6 without wasting time on 5 ... c6.
Then I recommend the modern continuation 6.g3!? In answer to
6 ... Cfjd7 White should refrain from the usual retreat to f3 in favour
of7.i.g2, allowing the opponent to trade on e5. The fine point is that
commonly Black can follow up with c7-c5 which is impossible against
a White bishop on g2.
In the main line 6 ... i.g7 White meets Cfjb8-d7 with Cfjf3 to proceed
with :fl-el, c2-c3, Cfjbl-d2 and to c4-e5 at an opportunity. Black's
position is very solid, but he is unable to break-through favourably
in the centre. That secures some spatial advantage to White.
167
Chapter 12 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3
g6
This system is quite popular.
Similarly to many other open-
ings where Black fianchettoes
his dark-squared bishop, the
second player cedes the centre,
but only to counter-attack it later
by pieces. Main characters in
this design are bishops on g7 and
g4, a knight on c6 and more sel-
dom, the c-pawn which could be
pushed to c5.
Besides, Black's setup has
obvious faults. Flank develop-
ment of the fS-bishop weakens
the square f7. If Black covers
that point by the common e7 -e6,
even more vulnerable would be-
come the square f6 and the whole
kingside with it. Therefore a con-
sistent continuation for White is
to hit f7 - by lbg5 or ..tc4 and
eventually by
5 . ..tc4
168
Major options are: a) 5 ... c6
and b) 5 lbb6.
Other alternatives are:
5 .. ..te6?! is the worst of them.
6.lbg5 immediately faces Black
with difficulties: 6 ... dxe5 7.lbxe6
fxe6 8.dxe5 ..tg7 9.f4 0-0 (9 ...
10.lbc3 lbxc3 11. 7 + lbxd 7
12.bxc3 13.i.e3lbb6 14 . ..tb3
lbd5 15 . ..td4 b616.c4lbb417.c5
Unzicker - Schulze, Dortmund
1992) 10.0-0 lbc6 11.lbc3 lbdb4
(11...lbxc3 12 . ..txe6+ 13.
bxc3 14.lIxd1 g5 15.g3
Lambert - Krueger, Wiesbaden
1988) 12 . ..txe6+ 'ith8, Arnold -
Palm, Karlsruhe 1988, when
White has 13 . ..te3 (13 ... g5
14.g3 gxf4 15.gxf4 16.
17 . ..tc5 ..th618 . ..tb3
lb2b4 19.a3 lba6 20.i..e3) 14.
lbxc2 15.i..c5 b6 16 . ..tb3
bxc5 17.i..xc2lbd4 18.i..d3 ltab8
19.b3 g5 20.fxg5 i..xe5 21.lbe4;
5 ... e6?! is also not very good.
Although it hardly loses, it weak-
ens the dark squared. 6.0-0 ..tg7
7 . ..tg5 (White had an interesting
transposition aimed at prevent-
ing the possibility of lbd5-e7 -
7 . ..txd5 exd5 8 . ..tg5 9.lbc3)
7 ... (In White's favour is
l.e4 0,f6 2.e5 0d5 3.d4 d6 4.0,f3 g6 5 . .1Lc4
7 ... f6 8.exf6 .ixf6 9 . .ixf6
10 . .ixd5 exd5 1l.Ite1+ c:J;;f7 12.
l:tfS 13.0,c3 c6 14.Ite3:t -
Black has a ruined pawn chain
and weakened king. A better pos-
sibility is 7 . ..tiJe7, for example:
8J:te1 h6 9 . .ie3 ttJf5 10.exd6
11.c3 ttJd7 12.ttJbd2 ttJf6
13 . .ib3 ttJxe3 14J:he3 ttJg4 15.
l:1e1 0-0 16.h3 ttJf6 17.ttJe5:t with
a small edge, Amed - Rossi, Ar-
gentine 2004) 8 . .ixd5 exd5 9.ttJc3
c6 (better is 9 ... dxe5 10.ttJxe5
11.Ite1 0-0 c6 13.
ttJd3:t or 10.dxe5 c6 11.l:te1 0-0
12. - Black's pieces are un-
developed and his kingside is
weakened.) 10.Itel 0-0 11.exd6
f6 12 . .if4. Black is in for a long
and possibly difficult struggle to
regain the d6-pawn. However it
is not too clear how White could
break-through. The game Soppe
- Houstoun, Buenos Aires 1978
saw further 12 ... I!.e8 13. .ifS
14.0,a4. (This operation is uncon-
vincing. Perhaps White should
have tried 14 . .ig3 0,a6 15.
c:J;;g7 16.h3 g5? 17.ttJxg5 fxg5 18.
19Jhe8 20.
or 16 ... .l:!.d8 17.l:te2 .ixd6
18. 19 . .ixd6l:txd6 20.
l:te7+ ..t>h6 21.l:tael with a clear
advantage in the endgame, as
well as 14.h3 J::rxe1+ 15 . .l::.xe1 ttJa6
16.0,h2 .ixd6 17.0,g4 .ie7 18.
14 ... b6 15.b3
This is losing. (15 ...
was better since White is unable
to double the rooks quickly:
or 16Jle2 .ia6) 16.c4
.ixd6 18 . .ixd6
19. with mating at-
tack, Perez Garcia - Garcia
Fernandez, Orense 2002;
5 ... dxe5 is also insufficient.
After 6.dxe5 (that is why the ex-
change on e5 is bad - the knight
on d5 is under attack) 6 ... c6
7.ttJc3 .ie6 (7 ... ttJxc3? 8 . .ixf7+;
7 ... e6 leads to a severe weaken-
ing of the dark squares, 8.0,e4
ttJd7 9 . .ig5 Guski - Al Saad,
Vienna 2003) 8.ttJg5
In many variations White puts
the enemy bishop out of play by
taking on e6, followed by f2-f4
and gets a tangible advantage:
8 ... ttJxc3 9. 10.
.ixe6 fxe6 11.bxc3+-Black is los-
ing at least a pawn with bad po-
sition;
8 ... 9 . .id2 0,f4 10.0,xe6
0,xe6 (or 10 ... 1l.0,e2
0,xg2+ 12 . ..t>f1 fxe6 13 . ..Itc3
14. ttJe3+ 15.
16.0,gl +-) 11.f4 0,d7 12 . .ixe6
fxe6
8 ... ttJd7 9.0,xe6 (9.f4 could
be met by 9 ... 0,xf4.) 9 ... fxe6 10.
f4 11. (1l . .ib3. The
bishop is a bit misplaced here,
11.. . .ih6 12.g3 0-0-0
14.h4 ttJxc3 15.bxc3
169
Chapter 12
lLlc5 18.0-0
19.i..c1 lLlxb3 20.axb3;!;.
White has already improved his
pawn structure on the queenside
whilst the enemy bishop is still
imprisoned on g7, Breder -
Palkovi, Paks 2000) 11 ...
(11 ... lLlxf4 13.0-0
and Black is in
great danger since 14 ... 0-0-0
fails to 15.':'ad1 +- 11 ...
0-0-0 12.lLle4;!; and White re-
tains his pawn chain flawless)
12.g3 lLlxc3 13.bxc3 (13 ...
lLlc5 14.0-0 lLlc5 15.
White harmoniously de-
ployed his pieces;
8 ... i..g7. This is a second-
grade move because after 9.f4 it
is unclear what the bishop is do-
ing on g7. Black should not be
wasting time. 9 ... lLld7 10.i..xd5
(White can also take on e6 as in
the previous variation) 10 ... cxd5
(10 ... i..xd5? l1.lLlxd5 cxd5 12.
l1.i..e3 (11.lLlxd5 does
not win a pawn in view of 11 ...
lLlxe5) 11...lLlb6 (11 ... h6?! is in-
consistent - Black should not
urge on the opponent into a
favourable to him exchange,
12.lLlxe6 fxe6 13. lLlf8 14.
0-0-0 15.h4 h5 16.
Svendsen - Rockel, corr. 1990)
12.lLlxe6 fxe6 13 . .1i.d4;!;. White
has an obvious static advantage
because of the g7 -bishop and
other perceptible drawbacks in
Black's position. The counterplay
against the f4-pawn and the
queenside cannot compensate
that. The game P.Cramling -
170
Alburt, Reykjavik 1984 went on:
13 ... lLlc4 14.b3 lLla3 15.0-0 (15.
h4!?) 15 .. J::tc8 16.nf2 17. t'fd3
b5 18.nc1 b4 19.1Lle2 lLlb5 20.c3
bxc3 21.a4 (White could have
eaten a pawn immediately: 21.
lLlxc3!? 0-0 22JHc2 lLlxd4 23.
24. ':'xc5 25.lLle2
':xc2 26.':xc2 g5 27.g3;!;.) 21...
lLlxd4 22.lLlxd4 23.h4! .l:tc5
24JIfc2 :hc8
(White's king has supported his
knight, thus freeing the queen
for or h4-h5 planning to cap-
ture on g6 or h7) 26 ... i..xe5!?
27.fxe5 29.:e1
(29J::txc3!?) 29 ... .:.f8+ 30.lLlf3
31. ':'c7 32Jhc3 ':'xc3 33.
.l:txf3 (this
is forced since White has created
mating threats) 35.gxf3 d4 36.

e5 t'fh2+
43.
Faced with an
imminent mate, Black resigned.
a) 5 ... c6
This is a good continuation. It
was regularly employed at differ-
ent times by GMs V.Hort, L.Lju-
bojevic, R.Vaganian, L.Alburt,
1.e4 tDf6 2.e5 tDd5 3.d4 d6 4.tDf3 g6
A. Baburin, A.Miles, V.Akopian,
V.Ivanchuk. Essentially this is
the best and perhaps the only
way to preserve the knight on d5.
Mter the usual exchange on d6
Black takes by queen and rein-
forces the knight by all possible
means (including b7 -b5 in case
of necessity). That ensures a
very solid, although somewhat
cramped position.
6.exd6
Of course capturing by pawn
is out of question. Mter 6 ... exd6
7 . ..txd5 cxd5 Black is "enjoying"
a compromised pawn chain, un-
developed pieces and problems
with the defence ofthe d5-pawn.
White gets the edge by B.tDc3
..te6 i.g7
11...tf4? or 10.tDxd5 0-0 1l.tDf4,
when there is no sufficient com-
pensation for the pawn.
7.0-0 i.g7
The pin 7 ... i.g4 is premature.
White meets it with B.h3 i.x3
9. i.g7 10.tDc3, attacking
d5,
for example:
10 ... tDf6 11.tDe4! 12.
i.xfl+ Wxfl 13.tDg5+ WeB (13 ...
WgB keeps the g7 -bishop, but
fails under a mating attack: 14.
15.b3
14.tDe6, when in the game Lukin
- Yermolinsky, USSR 1979 White
regained the piece leaving the
opponent with an exposed king.
It is possible further 14 ...
(more cautious is 14 ... 15.
tDxg7+ 'it>f7 16.i.h6 17.
15.tDxg7+ 'it>fl 16.l:!.e1 (a
good alternative is 16.i.h6
19.
c5 20. tDxd5 21.
l:tfel or 16 ... tDbd7 17JIfe1 e5
1B.:adl) 16 ... tDbd7 17.tDe6
lB. White is winning
the e7 -pawn with an attack, or
the exchange by tDe6-c7;
10 ... e6 1l.tDe4 (1l ...
12.i.g5;t:) 12.i.b3 0-0 (12 ... i.xd4?
13.c4 tDb6 14.tDf6+ We7 15.i.g5
'it>f8 16 Jbd 1 c5 17. tDd5! exd5
1B.:xd4 cxd4 Black
could have prolonged his resis-
tance here by 1B ... tDc6, intend-
ing to parry by How-
ever White has the simple 19.
I:th4 dxc4 20.i.h6+ 21.l:te1
22J:!xc4 with decisive at-
tack.) 13.c4 tDe7 14.i.f4
15.tDd6 (15.lhd1 was worth
consideration, depriving Black
of the possibility of taking on
d4) 15 ... b6 (15 ... i.xd4 prom-
ises more chances for creating
counterplay, e.g. 16.l::tfd1 c5
17.tDxb7 when 1B.i.h6 is
met by lB .. . tDbc6 with unclear
play, or 16.tDxb7 17.tDd6
tDd7;t:) 16.I:tad1 a5 17JIfe1 l:ta7.
Here instead of 18.i.c2 I:.d7 19.
with spatial advantage,
171
Chapter 12
but quite solid position for Black
in Watson - Wohl, Kuala Lumpur
1992, White could have tried
18.d5 exd519.cxd5 cxd5
tLlxd5 21..l::txd5 l;ld7 f6
(22 .. t!1a7
The open position un-
derlines the advantage of
White's piece.
8.h3
Generally Black's design is to
raise a light-squared pawn wall
by e7-e6 and b7-b5. Therefore he
would gladly swap his light-
squared bishop after
White prevents this positional
threat.
8 ... 0-0 9.l;lel
9 tLld7
9 .. After White re-
strained the enemy bishop by his
last move, Black was faced with
the problem where to deploy it.
He had a plan with b7-b5 and
but the bishop is rather
passive there since White can
easily prevent the break c6-c5.
By the text move 9 ... Black
is aiming at swapping his bishop
for the other enemy knight which
is apparently bound for e4. Of
course White is not obliged to
172
hurry with the knight to the cen-
tral square. He can attempt to
underline the downside of the
bishop being on f5 - to push g2-
g4 with a knight on d7, and when
the bishop retreats to e6, to at-
tack it by tLlg5. Summing up,
White has a spatial advantage
and should avoid exchanges, try-
ing to exploit the defects of the
crowded enemy pieces. 10.tLlbd2
(An instructive game for this line
is Tukmakov - Zhidkov, USSR
1973, which saw :eS
1l.tLlbd2 tLld7 t!1c7 13.
a5 t!1d8 15.a4;!:;. Fur-
ther on White, helped by the
enemy's lack of counterplay,
gradually advanced his pawns
and broke-through: 15 ... ncS
16.t!1e2 . ..t>h1tLl7f61S.tLlc4
tLle4 tLlef6 20.tLlce5
21.tLlc4 22.tLlfe5 23.tLld3
b6 24.l:tad1 t!1d7 25.tLlce5 t!1b7
26.t!1f3 l;ledS 27.g4 2S.c4
tLlb4 29.tLlf4l;lf8 30 . ..t>gl. Captur-
ing the bishop on e6 was good
too. 30 ... 31.g5 tLleS 32.c5
33.d5! bxc5 - Black is struggling
also after 33 ... 34Jhe5 bxc5
35.dxc6 4:Jxc6 36.l:Ixc5 - 34.dxc6
tLlxc6 35.tLlxc6 t!1xc6 36.tLld5 'it'hS
37.t!1e3 c4 3S.4:Jxe7 t!1b7 39.4:JxcS,
and Black resigned) 10 .. J:teS
(10 ... a5 should be met by 11.a4;!:;,
but not 11.4:Je4 12Jhe4 b5
13.iLf1 4:Jd7 e6 15.t!1c1
where Black achieved his
dream setup in Vezzosi - Vaga-
nian, Reggio Emilia 1992) 11.
b5 12.a4 4:Jd7. Here the
mentioned above downside ofthe
l.e4 tDf6 2.e5 tDd5 3.d4 d6 4.tD{3 g6
bishop's stand was highlighted
with: 13.g4! .ie6 14.tDe4 'fflc7
15.axb5 cxb5 16.tDeg5 tDf8 17.
tDxe6 fxe6 18.tDg5+- and Black's
position crumbled away: 18 ...
'ffld6 19. 'fflf3 20 . .l:txe6 ttJxe6
2l.'fflxd5 'ffle1+ 23.
tDf7 + 24.ttJe5 .ixe5 25.
'fflxe6+ 26 . .ie3 1-0 Magem
Badals - Rayo Gutierrez, Pon-
ferrada 1992.
9 .. a5. This move raises a dif-
ficult question - is it worth play-
ing a7-a5 and provoking a2-a4 at
all. The positive side is that the
knight on d5 feels more secure
since it could meet c2-c4 with
tDb4; on the other hand Black's
possibilities for counterplay with
b7-b5 are even more restricted.
10.a4 ttJa6 1l.ttJbd2 'ffld8 12.ttJe4
:e8 13.c3 tDac7 14 . .ig5;t. The
transfer of the knight to c7 is
hardly good. Even if it reaches
e6, it is unclear what the knight
is doing on that square. In the
game Anagnostopoulos - Dive,
London 1994, Black went on
manoeuvring dubiously: 14 ... l:.b8
15 . .ib3 tDb6 16 . .if4 ttJbd5 17.
.ig3 .if5 18.ttJc5;t b6? 19 . .ixd5
'fflxd5 (19 ... cxd5 20 . .ixc7 'fflxc7
2l.tDa6+-) 20 . .ixc7 bxc5 2l.
.ixb8+- and lost the exchange.
9 ... l:.e8 10.tDbd2 tDd7 1l . .ib3
'fflc7 12.tDe4 h6 (in the current
situation this weakening of the
kings ide proves to be significant
since the fl -square is also vulner-
able.) 13.c3;t b6 (this is passive,
Black should have tried 13 ...
tDf8) 14.h4! The pawn squeezes
through to h5, since 14 ... ttJ7f6
15.ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 16.ttJe5 e6 17.
.ib7 18 . .ixh6 is in favour of
White, who won a pawn whilst
the enemy king is in the draught,
Demarre - Dubois, France 1989;
9 ... b5 10 . .ib3 ttJbd7 1l.ttJbd2
leads to a transposition of moves,
whilst in the case of 10 ... a5 1l.
a4 b4 White retains the edge
by the standard manoeuvre of
the knight: 12.tDbd2 tDd7 13.
tDe4 'fflc7 14 . .ig5 e6 15. 'ffld2;t
W.Fischer - Caprano, corr. 1997.
10 ... .if5 1l.a4 b4 is also in
White's favour (after 1l ... tDd7
12 . .ixd5 'fflxd5 13.ttJc3 14.
Black would find it difficult
to prove that he has enough com-
pensation for the pawn) 12.tDbd2
a5 (also known is 12 .. J::te8 13.tDc4
14.ttJe3 .l:td8 - Black should
have preserved his pawn struc-
ture with 14 ... ttJxe3 15 . .ixe3;t -
15.ttJxf5 gxf5 16. e6 17 . .ig5
.l:tc8 18.'ffld2 ttJd7 19.i..h6;t, when
Black's king is shaky, Cosma -
Safranska, Calimanesti 1992.
Another good option for White is
13.a5 ttJd7 14.g4 i..e6 15.tDe4
16.tDfg5 ttJf8 17.ttJc5 i..d7 18 .
'fflf3t; 17 ... i..c8 18.tDxf7.) 13.
'ffle2 (The placement of the queen
on e2 is questionable. A good al-
ternative is 13.tDc4 'fflc7 14 . .tg5
ne8 15.'ffld2 ttJd7 16.i..h6;t, and
the typical g2-g4 at an opportune
moment.) 13 .. Jle8 14.tDc4
15.ttJce5 (15 . .ig5!?;t) 15 ... tDd7
16.'Dxfl!? 'it>xfl 17.g4 ..txg4 18.
tDg5+ 'it>g8 19.hxg4 (19.'fflxg4 e5
20.ttJe6 'ffld6 21.tDxg7 'it>xg7
oo
)
173
Chapter 12
19 ... e5 20. tH3 ctJ7f6 (better is
20 ... ctJ7b6 21.dxe5 J::ixeS 22 . .if4
lIxe1+ 23 . .!::i.xe1 24 . .ie3 .l:te8
2SJldl t) 21.dxeS l:i.xeS 22 . .if4
23.l:i.xe1 24 . .l::i.e6 .ud8
(24 ... .:.e8 25.bid6 .l::i.e1+
27 . .ie3 2S . .ie5ctJe8
26JIxc6!+- .ixe5 27.l:te6 ctJec7
28JheS h6 29.ctJe6. Faced with
heavy material losses, Black re-
signed in Haslinger - Broom-
field, England 2002.
9 ... h6. Black prevents the
fairly annoying pin .ic1-gS. On
the other hand, the text move is
weakening (although that is still
unnoticeable) the kingside with-
out an urgent reason. 10.ctJbd2.
Here Black has tried:
10 ... b6 11..ib3. Intending c2-
c4. (However this retreat was not
obligatory. White had the inter-
esting variation 11. l:te8 12.
ctJe4 13.ctJeS;t) 11...ttJd7 12.
13.c4 ttJ5f6 14. ':'e8
bixe1+ 16.ttJxel. Black
has some compensation for the
sacrificed pawn - the enemy
pieces are placed rather clumsy.
Actually, in the game he failed
to draw from that. 16 ... cS 17.
dxc5 ttJxc5 18.ctJdf3 ttJfe4 19 . .ic2
174
.if8 20 . ..te3 .ib7 21.i:!d 1 l:i.c8
22.ctJd4 a6 23.ttJef3 ttJd7
.l::i.e8 25.b3, Ernst - Alburt, Su-
botica 1987. White successfully
regrouped, keeping the extra
pawn. On move 22 was the last
moment when Black could have
evened the pawns, but not the
chances: 22 ... ttJa6 23.
24. .l:txc4 2S . .ib3 ':'c8 (2S ...
.ucS 26.ttJdf3 llc7 27.ttJeS;j;) 26.
ttJe6;j; fxe6 27 . .ixe6+ 28J:td7
(28 . .ixc8 .ixc8 29J:td8 .ie6 30.
.ixh6+ 31J:hf8;j;) 28 ...
29 . .ig4 hS 30 . .id4+ 31.ttJf3+
32 . .ie3+ g5 33 . .ifS ':'c7 34.
':'c7 ttJc7 35 . .ie4 .ie4 36.ttJxg5;
10 ... ttJd7 11.ttJe4 12 . .ifl
(commonly White retreats to b3
in this system - 12 . .ib3!?;1;) 12 ...
b5 13 . .id2 a5 lS.a4
b4 16.c4 ttJSf6 17 . .if4 18.
ttJg3 e6 (18 ... c5 19.dS;J;) 19 . .id6
':'e8 20.ttJe5 ttJxeS 21.dxe5 ttJd7
22.cS fS 23.f4, White has a con-
siderable spatial advantage, Z.
Almasi - S.Farago, Budapest
1992;
10 ... .ifS 11..ib3 (We already
noted that White should main-
tain tension by avoiding ex-
changes: 11.ttJe4 .ixe4 12JIxe4
ttJd7 13.c3 ttJ7f6 14.l:te1 b5 15 . .ifl
e6 and Black achieved his design
although his kingside is some-
what weakened, Mokry - Frei-
sler, Prague 1986) 11 ... b5 (Or
11 ... ttJd7 12.ttJc4 13.ttJce5 -
White does not need exchanges
if they do not produce new flaws
in Black's position, so 13.ttJh4!?;1;
was better. That way White
l.e4 Ci'Jf6 2.e5 Ci'Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.Ci'Jf3 g6
would force the opponent to take
on f5 by pawn which spoils his
pawn structure - 13 ... Ci'JxeS
14.Ci'JxeS l:.ad8 cS=, when
Black equalised in the game Pad
- Freisler, Karvina 1985. 12.Ci'Jh4
was also interesting: 12 ... i..e6 13.
Ci'Jxg6; 12 ... .i.xd4 13.Ci'Je4 .i.xe4
12 ... 13.Ci'Jdf3 e6
14.c4 Ci'JSh6 l:tad8 16.
i..d2t planning i..d2-c3 - anyway
Black will have to capture on f5
by pawn or weaken the kingside
by g6-gS.) 12.a4 Ci'Jd7 13.c4. This
is not the best option. (13.axbS!?
cxbS 14.Ci'Jf1t) 13 ... bxc4 14.Ci'Jxc4
"fic7 lS.Ci'JceS Ilab8 16.g4 Ci'JxeS
17.Ci'Jxe5 i..c8. In the current po-
sition despite the weakness on c6
Black is not worse, because the
shelter of White's king is also
compromised. In the game Black
made several bad moves and
went on to lose. 18. "fic2 .i.e6
(18 ... 19 . .i.d2 :e8<x 19 . .i.d2
(19.Ci'Jxg6! Ci'Jb4 19 ... c5
20.i..xd5 i..xd5 21. "fixc5 .i.xe5
(21... 22Jhe5 "fixc5 23.
dxc5 Trabert - Delchev, Bastia
1998. Like in the variation 11 ...
Ci'Jd 7, White should consider
13.Ci'Jh4 i..e6 (perhaps it is better
to accept some deterioration of
the pawn structure: 13 ... e6 14.
Ci'Jxf5 gxf5 15.axb5 cxb5 16.c3
Ci'J7f6 17.Ci'Jf3t, then Ci'Jf3-e5 and
possibly g2-g4; worse is 13 ...
itxd4 14.Ci'Jxf5 gxf5 15.axb5)
14.Ci'Je4 15.axb5 cxb5 16 . .l:.a6
(16.Ci'Jxg6!? fxg6 17.Ci'Jc3 Ci'Jxc3
18.itxe6+ 'it'h7 19.bxc3 "fixc3
20 . .i::.a3 "fic7 21.l:.g3t) 16 ... Ci'J7b6
17.Ci'Jc5 i..c8 18.Ci'Jxg6 !te8 19.
.l:.xb6 Ci'Jxb6 20.Ci'Je5-7 with dan-
gerous attack and practically
equal material.
lO.i..b3
lO ... b5
10 ... Ci'J5f6. Black radically
solves the problem of the d5-
knight. He retreats it to a safe
square and plays b7-b6, i..c8-b7,
e7 -e6, preparing c6-c5. 11. "fie2 e6
12.Ci'Jc3 b6 13.Ci'Je4 Ci'Jxe4 14. "fixe4
(the queen is heading for f4 or
h4) 14 ... i..b7 15.i..f4 "fie7 16.itg5
.if6 (16 ... "fid6 17.l:.adU i\"fih4)
17.h4 l:.ac8 18Jlad1 lHd8 19.
"fif4t. White generated pressure
on the kingside. In the game
Komissarov - Labunskiy, Po-
dolsk, 1993 Black erred and lost
in few moves: 19 ... b5 20.c4 (20.
h5!?t) 20 ... bxc4 21..txc4 'it'g7
(21.. . .txg5!?t) 22 . .th6+ 'it'g8 23.
Ci'Jg5 Ci'Jb6 (23 ... .l:.e8 24.Ci'Je4) 24.
l:.xe6 fxe6 25 . .txe6+ 26.
Ci'Jf7 + and Black resigned.
10 ... Ci'J7f6. The design of this
move is similar to the above-
mentioned line 10 ... Ci'J5f6. Black
is preparing c6-c5, but he leaves
the knight on d5, assuming that
c2-c4 does not give White any
175
Chapter 12
advantage. The other knight is
useful on f6, because it is pre-
venting the manoeuvre ct:Jb1-
d2-e4. 11 . .i.g5 (ll.ct:Jbd2!?;!; was
worth consideration. White's
knight is aiming to reach e5 via
c4. This idea became possible
since Black's last move removed
the control over that square. The
transfer of the bishop to the bS-
h2 diagonal is consistent al-
though somewhat lengthy.) 11 ...
b6 12.ct:Jbd2 .i.b7 13 . .i.h4 (13.c4!?
ct:Jc7 14. lUeS
13 ... I:!.aeS 14 . .i.g3 15 . .i.e5
(commonly this square is better
suited for a knight: 15.ct:Je5!?
16.c4 15 ... 16.
c3 White is demonstratively
calm. (16.c4!? is more enterpris-
ing) 16 ... c5 17.ct:Jc4 I:!.dS lS.ct:Je3
cxd4 19.ct:Jxd4. The game Bondoc
- Suba, Timisoara, 1976, showed
that even after realising success-
fully c6-c5 Black should be accu-
rate: 19 ... ct:Jxe3 20.1he3 .i.aS
(20 ... .i.d5!?) .i.h6 22J::tg3
(o22 ... .i.g7) 23.ct:Jf5 .i.f4
24 . .i.xf4 25 . .i.h6 l:.feS. Here
White could have won the ex-
change by 26 . .i.a4 ct:Jd7 27.:d1
threatening l:!gd3.
1l.ct:Jbd2
176
1l ... .i.b7
11 ... .i.a6 (the idea of this ex-
otic deployment of the bishop is
not too clear, moreover that af-
ter a couple of moves it retreated
back to the common place b7)
12.ct:Je4 13.c3 (White could
play right away 13 . .i.g5l:tfeS 14.
intending to meet 14 ... e5
by 15.dxe5 ct:Jxe5 16.ct:Jd4;;!;. White
wants to capture on d5 and check
from f6.) 13 ... .i.b7 l:tfeS
15. a5, Donatti - Soppe,
Montevideo 1994, when 16.a4;;!;
would have underlined the fact
that Black has just wasted time
on bishop moves.
11 ... e6 12.ct:Je4 13.c3 .i.b7
14.a4 a6 .l:tfeS 16 . .lid2 h6
17.c4 bxc4 a5 19 . .l:tac1
.l:tebS 20 . .i.d1 I:!.a7 2l.b3 .liaS 22.
ct:Jc5 (Black has covered every-
thing on the queenside so White
is trying to single out new tar-
gets on the opposite flank.)
22 ... ct:Jxc5 23.dxc5 .i.b7 24 . .lic2
.i.cS 27.
ct:Je5 .lid7 2S.<t>h2 (White failed to
expand on the kingside) 2S ... .lieS
29.ct:Jc4 30.<t>xg3 ct:Jb4
3l..i.xb4 .u.xb4 32.I:!.cd1 :bS 33.
I:!.d3 .i.f8 34.ct:Jd6 .i.d7 35.f4 g5
36.fxg5 hxg5 37.ct:Je4 .i.e7 3S.
I:!.ed1.i.eS 39.ct:Jd6 - Black is
able to defend successfully,
Herrera - Wohl, Havana 200l.
White's play could be improved.
Firstly, he could carryon c2-c4
in one instead oftwo steps: 13.a4
.i.b7 14 . .i.d2 followed by c2-c4.
Secondly, similarly to the game
Svidler - Akopian, Halkidiki
l.e4 Cfjf6 2.e5 Cfjd5 3.d4 d6 4.Cfjf3 g6 5.i.c4
2002, White could develop the
bishop to the more active place
g5 - 13.SLg5;t compared to 13.c3
and SLc1-d2.
To 1l ... Cfj7f6, taking e4 under
control, White should not play
12.Cfje4 Cfjxe4 SLb7, M.
Pavlov - Cibulka, Slovakia 1974
- as I mentioned many times, ex-
changes help Black's defence.
Better is 12.c4 bxc4 13.Cfjxc4
"fic7 14.SLd2::!; with prospects for
pressurising Black's weaknesses
on the queenside, or 12.a4
13.Cfje5 a6 14.Cfjd3;t, planning to
jump to c5.
12.Cfje4 "fie7 13 . .i.g5 e614.e4
Black is ready to carry out the
break-through c6-cS. That would
give him sufficient counterplay,
for instance after 14 . .i.h4 c5
15 . .i.g3 "fib6 or 14. "fid2 c5. By the
text move 14.c4 White is open-
ing up the c-file in order to hinder
Black's design.
14 ... bxe4 15 .i.xe4 Cfj5f6
15 ... c5 looks risky: 16 . .l:Ic1
17.dxc5 (17.Cfjxc5?! Cfjxc5
1B . .i.xd5 .i.xd5 "fib7iiO)
17 ... .i.xb2 1BJ:tc2 (Imprecise is
1BJ:tb1 Cfjc3 19.Cfjxc3 20.
.i.xf3 2l.l:!.xf3 .i.g7=. Worse
is 1B ... Cfjxc5 19.Cfjxc5 "fixc5 due to
20JIxb2! Cfjc3 2l."fid2 .i.xf3 22.
.i.f6 "fifS 23 . .i.xc3 .lhc4
25.gxf3
1B ... .i.g7 19.Cfjd6 (White has also
the calm alternatives 19. "fid2
.i.c6 Ll.i.g3 and 19.
Cfjd4;t M6) 19 ... Cfjc3 20. "fid2 .i.xf3,
when instead of the variation of
A.Finkel 2l.gxf3 "fixc5 22.CfjxcB
l':!:xcBf2 White should play 2l.
.i.aB (21...SLxc3 22. "fixc3
.i.b7 23 . .i.h6+-) 22.CfjxcB
Black's compensation
for the exchange is insufficient.
16.Cfjxf6+ Cfjxf6 17J:tel h6
lS . .i.h4
1B .. .lIacB!?
19 . .i.b3 "fib6 20."fie2l::tdeS
21..i.g3. White has managed
to prevent the break c6-c5 and is
able to start processing the
enemy's weaknesses. He has a
clear positional advantage. The
game Svidler - Akopian, Halki-
diki 2002 went on 21... "fib4 22.a3
"fie7 23.Cfje5 Cfjd5 (23 .. .1lcB?
24.Cfjxg6+-) 24.Cfjxe6 "fig5 25.h4
"fig4, when best was 26 . .i.xd5!
exd5 27.Cfje5 "fixd4 (27 ... i.xe5
2B.dxe5 d4 2S . .l:!.edl
29."fixe4 dxe4 30.Cfjd7 e3
31.Cfjxf8 e2 32.l:!.el +- with deci-
sive advantage (pointed out by
A.Finkel).
b) 5 ... Cfjb6 6 . .i.b3
(diagram)
We will now analyze in details
the following moves: bl) 6 ... d5,
b2) 6 ... Cfje6 and the main line
b3) 6 ... .i.g7.
177
Chapter 12
play 6 ... dxe5. After 7.liJxe5,
Black will have to restrict the
mobility of his bishop with the
move 7 ... e6, moreover this is go-
ing to weaken his kingside addi-
tionally. 8.lLlc3 i.g7 9.0-0 0-0
10J:tel lLl8d7 11.i.f4t Dias -
Rain, corr. 1999. It is now un-
favourable for Black to capture
on e5 (after taking on e5 with the
pawn, or with the bishop - the
weakness of the complex of dark
squares becomes even more evi-
dent), while it is inconceivable
how Black can develop his pieces
without that exchange. It also
deserves attention for White to
try the move 11. in order
first to develop the bishop to a
more active placement - the g5-
square and secondly to activate
the queen closer to the kingside.
It is hard to advise Black to
opt here for 6 ... e6. He should de-
fend his f7 -square only if White
attacks it. 7.i.g5 i.e7 8.Sii.xe7
9.c3 (This move for White
is hardly necessary at that mo-
ment - the d4-pawn has not been
attacked at all. Instead, he
should have simply developed
his pieces - 9.liJbd2 'Dc6 10.0-0
178
and his advantage would have
been even more clear-cut than in
the game.) 9 ... lLlc6 10.liJbd2lLld7
The dark squares are
terribly weak in Black's camp
and the horrible mistake 11 ...
led to an immediate catas-
trophe after: 12.exd6 cxd6 13.
d5+- Grilc - Zrinski, Stockerau
1991.
6 ... a5. This move is standard
for this variation and it either
forces the retreat of the bishop,
or the move a2-a4. Now, follow-
ing this move-order, White has
the possibility of a restricting
temporary pawn-sacrifice: 7.e6
i.xe6 (It is worse for Black to
play here: 7 ... fxe6 8.liJg5 and be-
cause ofthe threat Black
is forced to continue with: 9 ...
Sii.h6 10.lLlxe6 Sii.xe6 11.Sii.xe6
and White's bishop is rock-solid
on the e6-square. Black loses
immediately after: 7 ... f6?? 8.
liJg5+-, since he cannot capture
on g5, because ofthe move
and White checkmates. Black
loses at least his rook on h8,
Ma.Tseitlin - Safarov, Leningrad
1977.) 8.Sii.xe6 fxe6. White re-
gains his pawn and maintains
his positional achievements. In
the game Lukin - Alburt, Beltsy
1974, there followed: 9.liJg5liJc6
(Black loses a pawn after: 9 ...
i.h6 10.lLlxe6 11.lLlxc7+
'fftxc7 12.Sii.xh6 13.c3lLlc6 14.
liJa3 Beliavsky - Menvielle, Las
Palm as 1974.) 10.CtJxe6
11. 'ffte2 lLld8 12.CtJxf8 llxf8 13.
0-0 a4 14.Sii.e3t. Black's king is
4.tLlf3 g6 5.i..c4 tLlb6 6.i..b3 d5 7.a4
almost defenseless - his dark
squares on the kingside are vul-
nerable and accordingly he can-
not castle there, while his queen-
side has been weakened too, be-
cause of the advance of Black's
a-pawn. He will have plenty of
problems in the middle game,
because of the lack of safety of
his king. 14 ... tLld5 15.c4 tLlf4 16.
':'xf4 17. 18.d5 ti'g4
(White will counter 18 ... e5 not
with 19.dxe6 ti'xe6 20.ti'c3 ti'f6=,
but with 19.tLlc3 and if Black
tries to run away with his king
19 ... 'it>f8 - 20.f4, opening the f-
file with the intention to pen-
etrate the f6-square with the
knight.) 19.tLld2 ti'f4 20. ti'e2.
Naturally, White should avoid
trading queens. 20 ... b6 21.tLle4
lbb7 22.b4 axb3 23.axb3 ':'xa1
24Jlxa1 ':'f8 25.g3 ti'e5 26.':'a8+
lbd8 27.'it>g2 28.f4 h6 29.tLlf2
e5 30.ti'g4+-, so finally White
managed to expose Black's weak-
nesses victoriously.
bI) 6 ... d5
This move reduces the ten-
sion deliberately without any
necessity, but it helps Black build
a solid defensive line. He loses
however, his chances to create
any effective counterplay and
White can maintain a stable ad-
vantage with his wonderful
pawn-outpost on the e5-square.
7.a4 a5 S.h3
As usual, it is good for White
to prevent the move and its
trade for the knight on f3.
S ... 9.0-0 0-0
Castling for Black is the most
natural follow-up.
It is not good for him to play
9 ... - with the idea to attack
White's a4-pawn, since his pieces
will be placed unfavourably then.
10.lbc3 e6, Segers - Hettler,
Baden-Baden 1987, and here in-
stead of 11. ti'e2, White had bet-
ter continue with the
idea to exploit the fact that Black
has weakened considerably the
dark squares with his last move.
Black's other possibilities are
only slightly better:
The move 9 ... c6 - prepares
the maneuver of the knight to
the c7 -square via a6. Meanwhile,
the knight on c7 is not such an
asset for Black at all. 10.tLlbd2.
(It is also possible for White to
follow with 10.tLlc3 and next tLlc3-
e2-f4.) 10 ... lba6 1l.c3 tLlc7
(This move creates perma-
nent weaknesses on Black's
kingside.) gxf5 14.tLlb3
(This knight is headed via c5 or
c1 to d3 and f4 and later if nec-
essary to the h5-square.) 14 ...
tLld7 e6 White
maintains a stable advantage
179
Chapter 12
here - his opponent's position is
cramped and he has no clear-cut
plan to follow. Black would like
to castle, but both his flanks are
considerably weakened. Later, in
the game Reprintsev - Ryskal,
Ukraine 1991, there followed:
16 ..
19.b3 b6 20.c4 (White now has an
additional possibility - to pre-
pare c4-c5, or to trade on d5 at
an opportune moment.) 20 ...
h6 22.iLf6 0-0 (22 ... iLxf6
23.exf6) 23.lbf4 lbxf4
'it>h7 25.iLxg7 'it>xg7 26.g4 fxg4
27.hxg4 f5 (027 ... f6
28.lbh4 29.gxf5 c5
i:Iad8 3l.i:Ig1 lbe8 32.i:Ig6 and
Black resigned;
9 ... lbc6 lo.lbc3 0-0 1l.i:Ie1
iLf5 12.lbe2 13.lbg3 iLe6
14.lbg5 .l:tae8 15.f4;1; (White's cen-
tre is now rock-solid.) 15 ... f6
16.lbxe6 ftxe617.c3 fxe5 (Black's
position would have been more
resistant and reliable after
17 ... f5, with the idea to remove
the queen later and to follow
with e7-e6. Well, Black would
not have then any counterplay
against White straightforward
plan - to play i:Ig1, to re-
move the knight from the g3-
square and to follow with g2-g4
and if necessary even h3-h4-h5.)
18.fxe5 (Black's queen on e6
was miserably placed, but after
its retreat his whole kingside
became practically defenseless.)
19.h4 e6 20.h5lbe7 2l.hxg6 hxg6
22. c5 (otherwise Black loses
his g6-pawn after 23.iLc2) 23.
180
lbe4! cxd4 24.lbd6 25.lbxe8
l:!.xe8 26.cxd4 and Black could
have already resigned in the
game Ghinda - L.Popov, Warsaw
1979.
Black has experimented with
the other possible development
of the bishop - 11.. .iLe6 12.iLf4
(White could have also tried the
standard maneuver of the knight
i.e. 12.lbe2, for example: 12 ...
13.lbf4 iLf5 14.lbh4!?;!;.) 12 ... ftd7
13. .l:i.fe8 14.lbg5 (it is more
logical for White to follow with
14.iLh6!?;!;) 14 ... lbb4 15.lbb5
16.c3 lba6 17. c6 18.
lba3 c5 19.1bb5 cxd4 20.lbxd4
lbc5 2l.iLc2 lbc4 22:!Y:fc1 f6 23.
lbgf3 (White maintains his domi-
nance in the centre as before.)
23 ... iLf7 24.lbb5 fxe5 25.lbxe5
lbxe5 26.iLxe5 iLxe5 27 . .l::txe5 e6
28. and Black's weaknesses
on the dark squares are quite
evident, Pikula - Petrovic, J aho-
rina 200l.
lO . .l:lel
White's centre is solid and
powerful (Black's bishop on g7 is
practically out of action) and he
has excellent attacking prospects
on the kingside. He should de-
4.lZJ{3 g6 5 . .Yl.c4 CiJb6 6 . .Yl.b3 d5 7.a4
ploy there his light pieces - the
knight on b1 (one of the possible
routes is via c3 and e2 to f4 or g3
- depending on circumstances),
then the bishop on b3 can be
brought into action (after c2-c3
and SLb3-c2). White can also try
SLc1-f4, tlrd1-d2 and SLf4-h6 with
the idea to weaken the defence
of the black king by exchanging
the dark squared bishops. Gen-
erally speaking, his plan is quite
clear. Concerning Black, it is not
so easy to give him a good advice.
He would hardly achieve any-
thing by preparing c7 -c5. Some-
times he brings his knight on b8
to the e6-square (via a6 and c7)
in order to control the f4-square,
but all that takes a long time and
it is hardly effective. Black can
try to prepare fl -f6, but that is
definitely double edged, since
the g6-square gets weakened in
the process. White's advantage
might not be so great indeed, but
it is so much easier and simpler
to play with White in this posi-
tion.
10 ... c6
About 10 ... lZJc6 1l.lZJc3 - see
9 ... lZJc6 10.lZJc3 0-0 1U:tel.
It is not good for Black to play
10 ... lZJa6, because after 1l.ii.d2
he is forced to retreat with his
knight in order not to lose a pawn
- 11...lZJb8, so he loses tempi
instead. 12.lZJc3 c6 (This
move seems to be quite artificial
- the e2-square is not the right
base for White's queen and
the placement ofthe black knight
on the c4-square is nothing
White should worry so much
about, for example: 13.CiJe2 CiJc4
and here after the simple line
14.SLclt ilc3, SLc2 - both sides
have lost some tempi on knight-
moves (Black) and bishop-moves
(White), but the deployment of
the black knight on the c4-square
seems a bit senseless.) 13 ... lZJa6
14 . .Yl.e3 CiJc7 15.tlrd2 (This move
is like an admission that the de-
velopment of the queen to e2 was
purposeless.) 15 ... lZJc4 16.SLxc4
dxc417.SLh6 .Yl.e618.l:te4;:!;. White
has some initiative, but it is not
so easy for him to materialize it
into something real: 18 ... f6 19.
:rae1 SLd5 20.lZJxd5 (20.SLxg7
2l.exf6+ exf6 22.l:te7+ l:tfl
23.liJxd5liJxd5 24Jhfl+ 25.
tlrb6
co
) 20 ... cxd5 (20 ... CiJxd5
2l.SLxg7 22.exf6+ exf6 23.
2U:th4 (2l.exf6 exf6 22.
l:!.fl 23.l:txfl 24 . .Yl.xg7
25. tlre3;:!;) 21.. . .Yl.xh6 22.
23.liJh2l:ta6 24.tlre3 f5
25.f4liJe6 26.g4 CiJg7 27.liJf3 lZJe6
and since White's rook on h4 is
definitely not an asset to his po-
sition and accordingly he is not
even better - the opponents
agreed to a draw in the game,
Smagin - Marinkovic, Cacak
1991.
1l.CiJc3 CiJa6 12.lZJe2 CiJc7
13.c3 CiJe6
tice in this position: 13 ... liJc4
with the idea to follow with b7-
b5 and to organize some counter-
play on the queenside. 14.ii..c2 b5
181
Chapter 12
15.b3 4Jb6 16.4Jf4 bxa4 17.bxa4
4Jc4. Black's knight is beautifully
placed here, but in fact it is quite
useless - it attacks nothing.
lS . .l:!b1 (It deserves attention for
White now to follow with lS.
4Jg5!? and the threat to sacrifice
a piece on h 7 forces Black to
weaken his kingside. lS ... h6
19.4Jf3 and later White will fol-
low with h3-h4-h5 at an oppor-
tune moment: 19 ... 4Je6 20.4Jxe6
i.xe6 21.i.f4 l:tbS
23.h4 "'cS 24.h5 i.g4 25.hxg6+
fxg6 26.4Jh4 i.h5 27.e61'.) lS ... f6.
This move is very risky for Black
- he should worry about how to
get rid of a white piece on the e6-
outpost. (He should have played
instead: lS ... 4Je6, but even then
by playing h3-h4-h5 just in time:
19.4Jxe6!? i.xe6 20.4Jg5 "'d7 2l.
4Jxe6 "'xe6 22.f4 f5 23.g4;;!;; or 19.
i.d3 4Jxf4 20.i.xf4 i.a6 21.h4
z:tbS 22.h5l:txb123.i.xb1 "'bS 24.
i.g5;;!; and White's threats on the
kingside will surely become quite
dangerous soon, for example:
24 ... "'c7 25.e6 f6 26.i.c1- White
does not achieve anything with
the piece-sacrifice: 26.hxg6 fxg5
27.gxh7+ 2S.4Jxg5, because
of 2S ... 4Jd6, for example: 29.4Jf3
i.f6 30.4Je5 i.xe5 3l.z:txe5 4Jc4oo
- 26 ... f5 27.hxg6 hxg6 2S.4Jg5 c5
29."'f3 "'b6 30. "'h3 1:tf6 3l.i.d3
cxd4 and Black cannot
play 32 ... "'xd4 33."'h7+
34.4Jf3 "'xd3 35.i.h6+-.) 19.e6
"'d6 20. f5. This is definitely
a bad move and Black's whole
lS2
kingside remains defenseless af-
ter it. 2l.4Jg5 i.a6 22."'g3 c5 23.
ct:Jxh7 and Black resigned in the
game Adams - Dunnington, Ha-
ringey 19S9, because he has no
defence against the checkmating
attack: 23 ...
25.4Jh5 4JeS 26.i.f4 "'c6 27.i.h6
i.xh6 2S. "'xh6+ 29.ct:Jf4 z:tf6
30.4Jg6 .l:Ixe6 (30 .. Jbg6
32."'h5+ 33."'f7+ and
White checkmates) 3l."'hS+
32. "'f8+ 33.i.xf5+-. Black
should have captured the pawn
first: 20 ... 4Jxe6 and after 21.
4Jxe6 (but not 2l.4Jxg6 hxg6 22.
"'xg6, because of 22 ... f5 23.4Jh4
4Jc7) 21...i.xe6 22. "'e2 he should
give it back: 22 ... i.cS (Black must
not try to hang on to the extra
pawn with: 22 ... 23Jlb7 i.d7
24.i.d3 .l:IfeS 25.i.xc4 dxc4 26.
i.a3 "' e6 27. 4Jd2 "' d5 28. 7 +
l:txe7 29 . .l:Ixe7+ 30.l'tbxd7;
27 ... "'xe2 2S . .l:txe2 l:tadS 29.ct:Jxc4
and Black loses material) 23.
"'xe7 "'xe7 24.l'txe7l'tf7 25.z:tel;;!;.
White maintains a stable advan-
tage - his rooks control both open
files.
I4.i.c2 f5 I5.en6 exf6
The game Borgo - Varga,
4.ltJ{3 g6 5.1Lc4 ltJb6 6.iLb3 ltJc6 7.ed
Budapest 1999, followed with:
16.ltJf4 17.ltJxe6 i.xe6 18.b3
.tIfe8 19.i.a3 20.i.d3 i.f8 2l.
i.xf8 22. 23.
ltJxd2 i.f7 24.f3 25.l:.xe1
lle8. Black managed gradually to
equalize at the end. The ex-
change of knights by White on
moves 16-17 in fact facilitated
Black's defence considerably.
The side, which has the advan-
tage, should in principle avoid
exchanges, unless they lead to
something quite substantial.
Instead, White should have
played: 16.h4 (eyeing the weak-
ness on g6) 16 .. f5 17.h5
18.hxg6 hxg6 19.1tJf4 (with the
idea to trade the defender of the
g5-square) 19 .. Ite8 20.ltJxe6
.1:txe6 21.i.g5 22.b3 .ltd7
23.ltJe5 and White
is clearly better because of his
wonderfully centralized knight.
b2) 6 ltJc6
This early development ofthe
knight is quite dangerous for
Black, as in so many other lines
ofthe Alekhine Defence, because
White can attack it with d4-d5.
7.exd6
This move is with the idea to
follow with d4-d5 on the next
move, making use of White's su-
perior development and particu-
larly of the fact that Black's
bishop has not been developed to
the g7 -square yet.
7 .. cxd6
Opening of the e-file after
7 ... exd6 might cause great prob-
lems for Black: 8.0-0 d5 (as a
consequence of the move g7 -g6,
Black fails to interpose with the
bishop 8 ... i.e7 and then castle,
because of 9.i.h6 and he in a
real trouble; 8 ... i.g4 9 . .i.g51Lxf3?
10.i.xf7+ 9 . .tIe1+
.i.e6 10.c3 .i.g7 1l.ltJg5;t - and
Black can hardly defend the e6-
square successfully .
He has tried in practice some-
times 7 ... with the idea to
develop his pieces and to under-
mine White's centre with e7-e5.
White preserves his opening ad-
vantage in this case too with:
8.0-0 i.g7 9.c3 0-0 10.a4!? with
the idea to counter 10 ... a5 with
1l.ltJa3;t, followed by ltJb5 and
i.f4. Black cannot equalize ei-
ther with: 10 ... i.g4 1l.h3 .i.xf3
12. 7, Magomedov - Che-
tverik, Cappelle la Grande 1997,
13.ltJd2ltJf6 14.ltJc4 15.a5 a6
16.ltJe5 and White has an over-
whelming advantage (recom-
mended by M.Magomedov). It is
much trickier for Black to follow
with: 10 ... i.f5, preventing the
move 1l.a5, because ofll ... ltJxa5.
White should then play: 1l.ltJbd2
a5 12 . .tIe1 and now he is clearly
183
Chapter 12
better after: 12 ... Itae8 13.tbe4
14Jhe4 and if 14 ... e5 then

with a dangerous pin along the
e-file, as well as after: 12 ... e5 13.
dxe5 tbxe5 14.tbxe5 15.tbf3
"xd1 16 . .l:txd1 17 and
White maintains a long-lasting
initiative in the endgame.
B.d5
B ... tbe5
This move compromises
Black's pawn structure, but that
is possibly the least of evils for
him now:
The move 8 ... tba5 enables
White to play 9. "d4 and thus to
disrupt the harmonious develop-
ment of Black's kings ide pieces:
9 ... 10.0-0
"c7, Golubev - Vanderwaeren,
Leuven 2003, and here instead
of what White played in the
game i.e.: h6
tbac4 14 . .Jtc3;!;, he had to con-
tinue with: 12.tbc3, after which
it would have been a disaster for
Black to play: 12 ... .Jtg7 13.
while castling long would have
left his f7-pawn defenseless;
9 ... tbxb3 10.axb3 llg8 1l.c4
.Jtg7 12."f4 tbd7 13.0-0 tbf6
184
14.tbc3. This position might
have been only slightly worse for
Black had he already castled,
instead of the move Pres-
ently, he is forced to perform
something like an artificial cas-
tling, weakening additionally his
position. Meanwhile, White has
a free hand to prepare a break-
through on the queenside and in
the centre. The game Penrose-
Cafferty, Brighton 1977, followed
with: 14 ... a6 15Jle1 'it>f8
h6 17 g5 18. "e3 tbg4 19.
lhg7 20."d4 f6 21ob4
22.tba4 tbe5 tbxc4 24.
"xc4 b5 25. "d3 bxa4 26.tbd4
"b6 27 . .l:txa4 'it>g7 28.b5 "b7 29.
tbc6 axb5 30.:xa8 "xa8 31.tbxe7
f5 32. "d4+ and because of the
line 32 ... 'it>h7 33."b6 and Black
loses his d6-pawn - he resigned,
Penrose - Cafferty, Brighton
1977;
Black is not out of the woods
after: 9 ... f6 either, because that
weakens the crucial e6-square
and it becomes a dreamlike out-
post for White's knight, for ex-
ample: 10.i.d2 (forcing the open-
ing of the queens ide and Black's
knight on b6 would be a sorry
sight then) 10 ... tbxb3 11oaxb3
12.i.a5 i.f5 (Black has no
compensation for the pawn after:
12 ... i.d7 axb6 14 . .l:i.xa8
"xa8 Now, Black has
serious problems after: 15 ... "a6
16."xa6 bxa6 17.tbc3 'it>f7 18.
and White remains with a
solid extra pawn in the endgame,
Volzhin - Davies, Dhaka 2001; as
4.4J{3 g6 5.il..c4 4Jb6 6.il..b3 4Jc6 7.ed
well as after: 15 ... f5 16.c3
17.0-0 13.c4
0-0 14.0-0 15Jlel .l:teS 16.
4Jbd2 4Jd7 17.Sl.c3 a6 IS.4Jh4
4Je5 19.f4 4Jf7 20.4Jxf5 2l.
4Jf3. White enjoys an over-
whelming positional advantage,
because of Black's chronical
weakness on the e6-square.
Later, in the game Ponomariov-
Pesotsky, Kiev 1997, there fol-
lowed: e5 (oth-
erwise White follows with 4Jd4-
e6) 23.dxe6 l:[xe6 24.4Jd4l:[xe1+
25Jhel f5
2S.lIxe7 .l:.bS 29.4Je6 Sl.xc3
30.bxc3 b5 3l.cxb5 axb5
and despite the material equal-
ity, the endgame is extremely
difficult for Black - his pieces
remain too passive.
9.4Jxe5 dxe5 10.0-0
After the exchange on e5 -
Black's pawn-structure turns out
to be considerably compromised,
because of the doubled e-pawns.
He would hardly manage to cor-
rect that by playing e7 -e6. White
might then either trade on e6, or
follow with d5-d6.
Presently, in the existing
pawn-structure, White has extra
space and practically unopposed
pawn-majority on the queenside.
His natural plan would be to
make a good use out of it, for ex-
ample by advancing his c-pawn
forward, or by preparing the
pawn-break d5-d6.
Black's most effective counter
chance then might be the deploy-
ment of his knight to the ideal
d6-square for it, via d7-f6-eS, or
cS, and if necessary b7 -b6 (in
case White plays c2-c4), followed
by an advance of the e and f-
pawns.
10 ... i..g7
10 ... 4Jd7 (this is an immedi-
ate attempt by Black to improve
the placement of the knight)
1l.4Jc3 Sl.g7. Later, the game Wil-
der - Boulard, France 1989, fol-
lowed with: 12.Sl.e3 0-0
4Jf6 14.h3 b6 (14 ... 4Je8!? 15.
4Je4;!;) 15.:ad1.ib7 16 . .l:r.fel 4JeS
17.h4 h5 IS.4Je4;!; and White
maintained his space advantage.
It was however, much more
energetic for him to play: 12.
d6!, exploiting his lead in devel-
opment. Black would have to
worry then about too many
threats (4Jb5, dxe7, followed
by 4Jd5, i.g5) and his defence
would be extremely difficult:
12 ... 4Jf6 (12 ... 0-0 13.i.g5 4Jf6 14.
dxe7 15.4Jd5+-; 12 ... 4Jc5
13.4Jb5 4Jxb3 14.4Jc7+ 15.
axb3 .&!.bS 16.dxe7+ rJ;;;xe7 17.
4Jd5, so Black either loses his
a7-pawn, or he has to "central-
ize" his king by placing it on the
e6-square) 13.dxe7 (13 ...
lS5
Chapter 12
'fixe7 14 . .ltg5) 14Jhd1 cJ;;xe7
15 . .ltg5 iLe6 16.'Dd5+ i.xd5 17.
I:txd5 and Black would not save
his e-pawn.
11.iLe3!?
White has tried in practice
mostly the move 11.a4 in this
position. Advancing the a-pawn
is not always necessarily advan-
tageous for White, therefore it is
possibly better for him not to
force Black's knight away from
the b6-square immediately. It
will have to abandon that square
sooner or later anyway. 11 ... 0-0
12.a5 'Dd7 13.iLe3 lbf6 14.h3
(14.'Dc3!? 'De8 15.f4 exf4 16.i.xf4
'Dd6 17.'fie1'Df5 18.iLe5;;!;) 14 ...
'De8 15.'Dd2 (15.c4!? lbd6 16.c5
'Df5 17.'Dc3 'Dd4 18.iLxd4 exd4
19.'Db5;;!;) 15 ... 'Dd6 16.'Dc4 'fic7
17.'fie2 .id7 18.'Dxd6 exd6= -
and Black is not worse at all,
Mortensen - Hoelzl, Randers
1982.
11 ... 0-0
1l ... 'Dd7 12.'Dc3 0-0 13. 'fif3
'Df6 14.h3;;!; transposes to the
variations that we have already
analyzed in our notes to Black's
move 10 in the game Wilder -
Boulard, France 1989.
186
Now, the idea to advance out-
right White's queenside pawns is
once again on the agenda: 12.c4
'Dd7 13.c5 'fic7 (13 ... b6 14.c6
'Dc5 15 . .l:t.e1'Dxb3 16. 'fixb3; 15 ...
e4 16 . .ltxc5 bxc5 17.'Dc3) 14.d6
exd6 15.cxd6 'fia5 16.'Dc3;;!; -
White's passed pawn is quite
safe now and his pieces are much
more active than these of his op-
ponent.
b3) 6 ... .ltg7
This is Black's most natural
and definitely best move and it
has been played by Robert Fi-
scher (well, he tried it only once,
but that was in the World Cham-
pionship match against Spassky
back in the year 1972) and it is
also a part of the opening reper-
toire of some leading grandmas-
ters likes L.Alburt, R.Vaganian,
J. Timman. Black is already pre-
pared to castle after that move
and he plans to attack White's
centre with the help of'Db8-c6
and .ic8-g4.
White can opt for the follow-
ing plans:
At first, he can play 7.a4 and
counter 7 ... a5 with 8. 'fie2, 0-0
4.ltJ{3 g6 S.i.c4ltJb6 6.i.b3 7.ed
and h2-h3, protecting his centre;
Secondly, he might (either
immediately, or after the inclu-
sion of the moves 7.a4 a5) play
ltJf3-g5, in order to provoke d6-
d5, later he can fortify his cen-
tre with f2-f4 and then he can go
back with his knight to the f3-
square. The critical line for
Black, after 7.ltJg5, is the move
7 ... e6 and following Black
answers with 8 .. and in the
line 9.ltJe4 dxe5 11.
c3 0-0 cJ;;xg7
there arises
a slightly better endgame for
White, but Black maintains de-
cent chances to equalize. In case
of 7 ... e6, White can again play
8.f4 and Black's most fashionable
variation against that is - 8 ...
dxe5 9.fxe5 c5 10.c3 cxd4 11.0-0
0-0 12.cxd4 ltJc6 13.ltJf3 ffi 14.
exf6 ltJd5
ltJf4, it is not easy for White to
prove that he has the edge in
these forced lines;
Finally, White has a third pos-
sibility at his disposal and it has
been tested successfully at the
highest level by Vishy Anand in
his game against Jan Timman in
Linares (1992) and that is what
we recommend to you.
7.exd6
(diagram)
7 ... cxd6
Black plays only seldom the
move 7 ... thd6. In the game
Vajda - Ducsoara, Romania
1995, White maintained the ad-
vantage after: 8.0-0 i.e6
10J:te1 (The exchange of
the light squared bishops has
lost several important tempi for
Black.) 10 ... 11.ltJc3 ltJc6
12.ltJe4 13 . ..th6!? 0-0 14.
..txg7 cJ;;xg7 15.b3 liad8 and here,
instead of the tentative move
16.c3;t, White had better play:
16.c4 (16 ... e6
18. it is too bad for Black
to try: 17 ... ltJxd4 18.ltJxd4 c5
19.1tJg3 20Jle4 21.
.u.h4+-)
Black's defence is extremely dif-
ficult, because ofthe vulnerabil-
ity of the long diagonal and
White's threat d4-d5. It is safer
for Black to play: 8 ... 0-0 9 . .l:i.e1
ltJc6 10.c3;t. There arises a posi-
tion, which is similar to the
variation: 6 ... ltJc6 7.exd6
8.0-0 ..tg7 9.c3. White plans to
attack Black's queen by playing
ltJb1-d2-e4. In the game Arakha-
mia Grant - Sutter, Geneva
1990, Black tried the immediate
pawn-break in the centre 10 ...
e5 and White should not have
played 11.ltJa3, as he did in the
game, because of 11 ... exd4 12.
ltJb5 but try instead: 11.
ltJxe5 ltJxe5 12.i.f4 and White is
clearly better in all lines: 12 ...
187
Chapter 12
13.dxe5 14.l:Ixdl 15.
Ite1 16.axb3 lbd5
f6 1B.e6, or 16 ... lbd7 17.e6lbc5
1B.exf7+ 19J::txeB :xeB
20.lbd2, White preserves his ex-
tra pawn in both cases; it is not
good for Black to play: 14 ...
15JIe1lbd7 16.lba3 and White
is threatening lbc4 and lbb5.
7 ... exd6 - Black has never
tried that move in practice. Fol-
lowing he should better
play B ... f6, complying with an
inferior position. d5 (9 ...
11.%!elt -
White's loss of castling rights is
not as dangerous as Black's .. .)
10.0-0 0-0 1l.a4!? (White creates
problems for Black now ... ) 1l ... a5
(1l ... g5 lbc6 13.a5 tDc4
dxc4 12.tDc3.
White's pieces are much better
placed than Black's in that sym-
metrical pawn-structure; the
risky move 12 ... g5 (in case of
12 ... lbc6, White can emphasize
the defects of Black's previous
move with the line: 13.tDb5 J::[f7
14.:el;:);) g4 14.tDe1 f5
15.tDd3;:l; leads only to a new
considerable weakening of his
opponent's position.
Black's two other possibilities
(after 7 ... exd6 enable
White to deprive his opponent of
castling rights and while Black
manages somehow to accomplish
an artificial castling, White will
create dangerous threats: B ...
10.0-0 tDc6 II.
c3 h6 12 . .th4 'ot>gB (there is no
other way for Black to introduce
1BB
the rook on hB into actions)
13.:e1 14.lbbd2. Black has
problems developing his queen-
side; White is threatening to
redeploy his knight - tDe4-f6
and in case of 14 ... .l:tfB 15.tDe4 f5
White can sacrifice a piece: 16.
tDeg5+ hxg5 17.tDxg5+ lB.
.te6 with the following eventual
developments: lB ... 19.
.tf6 (19 ... .txe6 20Jhe6 2I.
19 ... .th6 20. f4 2I.
.tg3 22 . .txcB 23.tDe6+
24 . .txf4 l;Ixf4 25.lbxf4
26.tDxh3;:l;) 20. 2I..txcB
22.tDe6+ tDe7
24.tDxfB 26.
27J:le1 2BJ:le6
30.1:Ig6 .tf6

It is a bit similar after: B ... .tf6
.
tDc6 12. because White
ages easily to create threats
against the enemy king, for ex-
ample: 12 ... C12 ... d5 13.
0-01') .tf5 14 . .l:te1
15.d5 tDe7 (15 ... tDe5 16.tDxe5
dxe5 17. 16. .l:.g8
17.tDg5+-.
8.0-0
White has exchanged his cen-
tral pawn and he will have a
long-lasting pressure along the
e-file; moreover Black's bishop
on g7 is now harmless, because
White can easily defend his d4-
pawn with the move c2-c3.
Black usually tries to orga-
nize his counterplay according to
the following scheme: he places
his pawn on d5 (closing the di-
4.lLlj3 g6 5.i..c4 lLlb6 6.i..b3 7.ed
agonal for White's bishop and
preventing d4-d5), he deploys his
bishop on f5 and the knight on
the c6-square and then he opts
for the maneuver lLlc6-a5-c4.
8 ... 0-0
About B ... lLlc6 9.c3 0-0 10.l:le1
- see B ... O-O 9Jtel lLlc6 10.c3;
8 ... d5 9J:te1 0-0 10.i.f4 lLlc6 1l.c3
- see 8 ... 0-0 9.l:!.e1 lLlc6 10.c3 d5
1l.i.f4.
It is too bad for Black to play
8 ... i.g4? Stepanov - Tarakanov,
corr. 1997, because of9.i.xf7+.
9.l:!.el lLlc6
As for 9 ... i.g4 10.c3 lLlc6 1l.h3
- see 9 ... lLlc6 10.c3 i.g4 1l.h3;
9 ... h6 10.c3 lLlc6 1l.i.e3 - see
9 ... lLlc6 10.c3 h6 1l.i.e3.
9 ... This placement of the
black queen has some pluses in-
deed (it supports the maneuver
lLlc6-a5-c4), but it possesses cer-
tain drawbacks too - for example
the queen can be attacked by
White's knight; after lLlb1-c3,
Black would not be able to play
d6-d5. 10.a4. White has this pos-
sibility now at his disposal, be-
cause his opponent has not
played lLlbB-c6 yet and he has
developed his queen instead a
bit prematurely. 10 ... lLlc6 (10 ...
i.g4 1l.a5 lLlcB 12.lLlc3 lLlc6 13.
lLld5 14.c3t and White can
counter the threat of having his
pawns doubled after 14 ...
with the line: 15J!e3 i.h6 16.h3
i..h5 17J:td3 i.xcl 18 . .l:;!xcU) 1l.
a5 lLld7 12.lLlc3 13.lLld5t -
White's pieces are very active.
10.c3
White is defending his d4-
pawn. He plans to bring his
knight on b1 to the kingside
along the route b1-d2-e4, or fi-
g3. The bishop on c1 can be de-
ployed to the g5-square, provok-
ing a weakening of Black's king-
side after h7-h6.
In the game that we have al-
ready mentioned - Anand -
Timman, Linares 1992, Vishy
chose another plan - he played
10.h3, in order to ensure the c3-
square for himself, because
the immediate move 10.lLlc3,
would have been countered by
Black with 10 ... i.g4, pinning the
knight and attacking the d4-
pawn. Later, the game continued
10 ... i.f5 1l.lLlc3 lIc8 12.i.g5 h6
13.i.e3 d5 14.lLle2 lLla5 15.c3
lLlbc4 16.i.c1 fib6 17.lLlf4 i.e4?!
(After 17 ... e6 18.lLlh2 Black en-
counters problems with his light-
squared bishop so he must con-
cede weakening of his kingside
- 18 ... g5 19.1Llh5. The correct
move is 17 ... 18.lLlh4 i.d7
19.1Lld3t - Anand.) 1B.lLld2!
lLlxb3? (Black had a better option
- 18 ... lLlxd2 19.i..xd2! lLlxb3 20.
19.1Llxc4 lLlxd2
20.i..xd2 e6 21.f3 22.axb3
189
Chapter 12
23Jha7
- Anand) 19 .. (19 ... dxc4
20.axb3 .ic6 21.bxc4+-, 19 .. Jhc4
20.axb3 and 21.f3+-) 20.thb3
dxc4 .ic6 22Jhe7 :feS
23.!heS+ .l:txeS 24 . .ie3 'f;tb5?
(Letting the pawn to d5 turns
Black's position hopeless. Black
could defend with 24 ... g5 25.tbh5
27.f3 .ihS -
Anand.) 25.d5!+- .id7
.ifS 27 . .id4 .if5 2S.g4! .ie4
29J:1el 30.b3! cxb3 31.axb3
32. 'f;te3 .id6 33.tDh5! and
Black resigned.
However on move 14th Black
could have introduced on c4 the
other knight: 14 ... tbc4!?
The idea of this move is to
meet 15.i.cl with 15 ... i.e4 16.
tbd2 (16.tbh2 b5) 16 ... tDxd2 17.
i.xd2 tbxd4 lS.tbxd4 .ixd4 19.
.ixh6 .ixb2 20.f3 i.f5 21.i.xffi
i.xal (21...'li;>xffioo) 22 . .ixe7 'f;tb6+
23.'it>hl i.d4 with good position
for Black, Sogaard - N oseda,
corr.1995.
White should better preserve
his dark-squared bishop since
15.tbg3 tbxe3 16.l:txe3 i.e6= is
only equal.
15.i.xc4 (16.tbg3
190
.ie6 17.'f;td2 'it'h7) also does not
promise an edge due to 16 ... 'f;ta5
(16 ... 'ot>h7 17.d5 tDe5 lS.tbxe5
i.xe5 19.i.xh6) with the follow-
ing illustrative variations: 17.c3
(17. 'f;txa5 ttJxa5 18 . .id2 ttJc6
19.d5 ttJe5 20.ttJfd4 .id7 21.ttJc3
g5 22J,tadl .l:IfeS; 17.tDc3
lS.l::.adl .l:td7 19 . .ixh6 tbxd4)
17 .. .'.t>h7 lS.b4 (1S.ttJg3 .l:tfdS)
lS ... 'f;td5 (lS ... cxb3 19.axb3
21.c4 22.ttJg3;l;;
.ie6 19.ttJf4 'f;td6
20.d5 ttJe5 21.tbh4 (21.tDd4 .id7
22.ttJde2 g5 23.tbh5 tDd3) 21...
.id7 22.i.d4 (22 . .ic5 l:txc5 23.
bxc5 24 . .l:te3 22 ... g5
(22 ... l:HdS 23.I:te4;l;;) 23.
(23.ttJh5 gxh4 24.tDxg7 ttJd3 25 .
.l:te3 :gS 26 . .l:txd3 cxd3 27. 'f;txd3+
f5 2S.ttJh5 23 ... 24.ttJf5
(24.ttJh5 gxh4 25.tDxg7 ttJd3 26.
l:te3 'f;txd5 27 Jhe7 .ixh3=t=) 24 ...
ttJf3+ 25.gxf3 .ixf5 26. .ixd4
27.cxd4 (27 ... gxf4 2S . .l:te6
fxe6 29. 'f;tg6+ 30.
31.'f;tg6+
2S. 'f;txf4 gxf4 29Jhe7 lUdS 30.
l:txb7 lhd5 31.l:.xa7 with
sufficient counterplay.
As we can witness - the basic
problem for White, following
Anand's plan (which is very dif-
ficult to accomplish, though ... ) is
that the temporary weakness
of the d4-pawn precludes the
knight-maneuver. Accordingly, it
is logical for White to solve once
and for all the problem of the
defence of the d4-pawn and
therefore I recommend the move
10.c3. Concerning White's queen
4.ttJ{3 g6 5.i.c4 CiJb6 7.ed
knight - its transfer to the
kingside via d2 and f1 is hardly
inferior to that via the c3 and e2-
squares.
One more plus of the move I
recommend is that in many
variations White can avoid the
trade of his light squared bishop,
because it can retreat to the c2-
square at an opportune moment.
The move 10.c3 has a certain
drawback too. White controls the
centre a bit less with a pawn on
c3, instead of a knight and Black
has the option to try to push e7-
e5 - this is a plan that White
must take into account after nu-
merous different move-orders.
with: b3a) lO ... i.f5 and b3b)
lO ... i.g4.
Black are:
10 ... d5 11.i.f4 i.g4 (after
1l ... i.f5 12.ttJbd2 13.ttJe5
ttJa5, 8hilov - Oliwa, By tom
1995, it deserves attention for
White to follow with: 14.ttJg4!?
ttJxb3 15.axb3 i.xg4 16.
and then ttJf3-e5) 12.h3 i.xf3 13.
- and after a transposition
of moves - there arises a varia-
tion that we are dealing with in
our line 10 ... i.g4;
10 ... h6. This move prevents
i.g5 indeed, but the point is that
it is even favourable for White
to provoke that weakening of
Black's kingside, sometimes with
a move like i.c1-g5 and ifh7-h6
- i.g5-e3. Black is now compro-
mising his kingside voluntarily.
11.i.e3 CiJa5 12.i.c2 ttJbc4 13.
i.cl. White is not worried by this
temporary retreat of the bishop
and the loss of tempi. Black will
soon lose time himselfby retreat-
ing with his knight. 13 .. J:teS
14.d5!? (White is threatening to
capture the enemy knight with
b2-b4.) 14 ... b5?! (in case of 14 ...
ttJb6, the placement of Black's
knights is nothing he can brag
about, his best decision had to
be the move 14 ... b6) 15.a4
(after 15 ... i.d7 16.axb5 i.xb5
17.b3, White advances his pawns
rather quickly: 17 ... ttJe5 lS.ttJxe5
dxe5 19.c4 i.d7 20.c5) 16.axb5
i.d7 17.b3 ttJe5 lS.ttJxe5 i.xe5
(lS ... dxe5 19.i.e3 20.c4+-)
19.i.xh6 20.i.e3 de Vre-
ugt - Chigladze, Izmir 2003;
10 ... 1l.i.g5 (Or 1l.ttJbd2
i.g4 12.h3 i.xf3 13.ttJxf3 e5
14.dxe5 dxe5, McDonald - 8010-
veychik, Churchill 2000, and
here after 15. White has a
slight advantage, because of his
powerful bishop.) 1l ... l:i.eS 12.
ttJbd2 ttJa5 13.i.c2 ttJac4 14.ttJxc4
(He should avoid compromising
his queenside with: 14.b3 ttJxd2
15. i.g4 16.i.d1 e6= Kufa-
191
Chapter 12
Svihel, Czech Republic 1995.)
14 ... 4Jxc4 15:i::1'e2 SLe6 16 . .id3;!;.
White has completed the devel-
opment of his queenside and he
has bright prospects on the
kingside;
10 ... 4Ja5 11.SLg5 1:leS (11 ...
4Jxb3 12.SLxe7+-) and here
White had better preserve his
bishop: like in some
other lines of the 10.c3 - varia-
tion. In the game Burchardt -
Epstein, Halle 1974, White did
not prevent its exchange and he
lost his advantage: 12.lbbd2
lbxb3 13.axb3 d5 (13 ... SLf5=) 14.
"i::1'e2 SLe6 15. "i::1'e3 lbcs
SLffi 17 18.SLe5 SLxe5 19.
"i::1'xe5 lbf5. He then tried to at-
tack on the kingside with 20.g4
and that only caused additional
weaknesses: 20 ... lbg7 21."i::1'f4
"i::1'cS 22.h3 h5 23. "i::1'h6 ffi 24. "i::1'xg6
SLf7 25. "i::1'h6 hxg4 26.lbh2 lbf5
27. "i::1'f4 gxh3 2S. "i::1'g4+ 'it>f8 29.
"i::1'xh3 SLg6 30.'it>h1
10 ... e5 (It is too early
for White to go into an endgame:
11.dxe5 dxe5 12."i::1'xdS .l:txdS 13.
lbg5 .l:td7; 13.SLg5 1:le8 14. lbbd2
15.lbe4 SLxb3 16.axb3 f5 17.
lbf6 - 17 .lbd6 ltebS - 17 ... SLxffi
e4 19.1bd4lbe5 20.SLxe5
Cesarini - Verrascina,
Ostia 1996. White does not
achieve anything substantial af-
ter: 11.h3 h6 12.a4 13.a5
lbd7 14.a6 bxa6 15.ltxa6lbb6 16.
e4?! 17.g4 exf3 lS.gxf5 "i::1'f6
19:i::1'xf3 Rosmann - Piepho,
Germany 1997. He proved to be
much better in that line indeed,
192
since Black could regain the f5-
pawn only by weakening his
pawn-structure considerably. It
would have been much better for
Black however, to have played
16 ... and it would turn out
that White's queenside operation
with a4-a5-a6 had been just
pointless.) 11..."i::1'c7 12.lba3 SLg4
13.h3 SLxf3 14."i::1'xf3 exd415.lbb5
"i::1'd7 16.lbxd4;!; lbxd4 17.cxd4
lIfe8 (17 ... SLxd4 lS.lIe7) lS.SLffi
lIxe1+ 19J:txe1 lIeS 20.ltxeS+
'i::1'xeS 21.'it>h2;!; and White main-
tained a slight advantage in the
endgame, Vetter - Ziegler, Ger-
many 19S4.
b3a) IO ... SLf5
Black develops a piece to a
natural square and he al.so
plans to exchange White's light
squared bishop in case it retreats
to c2.

1l ... h6
1l .. J::teS 12.lbbd2 "i::1'c7 13.
lbh4!? (This is an attempt by
White to exploit the temporary
weakness ofthe f7-pawn. In case
of 13.lbfl, Black follows with:
13 ... 4Ja5 Ji.xc2 15. 'i::1'xc2
4.ttJ{3 g6 ttJb6 6 . .i.b3 .i.g7 7.ed
l:IacS= Mont - Oppedal, Califor-
nia 1993 - and White cannot
claim any real edge after the ex-
change ofthe bishops.) 13 ...
(13 ... e5 15.ttJe4-"7)
White makes use
of the fact that Black cannot play
14 ... e6, because of 15.ttJe4 and he
must defend his fl -pawn with an
only move: 14 ... d5, giving up his
d-pawn.
H ... d5 12.ttJbd2 13.ttJf1
.l:.acS 14.a4 (It deserves attention
for White to try 14.h3!? lUeS 15.
ttJg3 - and Black's
bishop on e6 or d7 would not be
placed favourably at all.) 14 ...
.l:rfeS 15.a5 ttJc4 16.ttJg3 17.
dxc4 lS.h3 19.ttJe4
20.d5 2l.d6 22.
f6 (It would be
better for Black to play 23 ... .ltfloo,
taking the bishop to safety.) 24.
.l::!:ad1 25.ttJg3
exd6 2S.lIxeS+
cj;;>fl 29 . .l::!:e1 (The move 29.ttJe2
could have forced Black to go into
an endgame an exchange down
after: and cj;;>xeS.) 29 ... a6 30.
ttJe4 3l.ttJed2 ttJe5 32. :d4;!;
- and White's rooks are slightly
better than the queen, because
of the numerous weaknesses in
Black's position, Rossmann -
Birnbaum, Germany 1999.

ttJa5 13.ttJbd2 ttJxb3
14.axb3 (Black had better
attack the other white bishop
with the move: 14 ... ttJd5= with
approximately equal chances.)
15.h3 16. d5 17 e6
IS. cj;;>h7 19.ttJ3;!; Emms -
Etchegaray, Cappelle la Grande
1994.
12 ...
This is the most energetic
move for Black - he prepares the
thematic pawn-break in the cen-
tre e7-e5. He has also tried in
practice: 12 ... l:tcS 13.ttJbd2 d5 14.
ttJf1 g5 (This move eliminates the
attack against the e7 -square, but
it weakens the kingside.)
e6 16.ttJe3l:IeS 17.h4 g4 lS.ttJxf5
exf519.ttJe5 ttJxe5 2l.
dxe5 lIc4, S.Diaz
- Simonetti, San Fernando 1992,
and here White could have a
practically winning position af-
ter the line: 23.b3 l:Ixc3 24.
25.e6.
13.ttJbd2 lIfeS
Black has already prepared
the break e7 -e5 and White
should seriously consider what
he should counter that with.
14.a4!?
This move is with the idea to
attack Black's knights and to
preserve an important diagonal
for the bishop.
There has been only a single
game played in that line and
193
Chapter 12
it continued with: 14.ttJfl e5 15.
dxe5 (15.lbe3 exd4 16.ttJxf5 .l:he1
17. 18.cxd4 ttJxd4 19.
ttJxd4 iLxd4+) 15 ... dxe5
(16.ttJe3!?=) 16 ... iLxd7 17.ttJe3
iLe6 18.iLxe6l:txe6 19.94 e4+, but
at the end it was only Black who
could be better, Poetschke -
J.Diaz, Wiesbaden 1988.
It is not so good for White
to play: 14.lbe4 ttJa5, because
then he should comply with the
exchange of the bishop, since in
case of 15.iLc2 Black follows
with: 15 ... g5 16.iLg3 iLxe4 17.
iLxe4 f5 18.iLc2 f4 fxg3
20.fxg3 ttJd5 22Jlfl
ttJf6+.
14 .. ttJa5
14 ... a5 15.iLxf7.
15.iLa2 l::!ac8
16.ii.g3
16.b4lbac417.a5 ttJb2
ttJ6c4 19.1bfllbd3o.
The move 16.ttJe4 possesses
the drawback that Black has
some tactical ideas at his dis-
posal, connected with capturing
on e4, followed by g6-g5 and f7-
f5-f4: 16 ... lbac4 (16 ... d5 17.lbc5:;!;;
16 ... iLxe4 17JIxe4 d5 18J:te2:;!;)
17.b3 lba5 18.b4 (18.l:tc1 iLxe4
194
19.1:1xe4 g5 20.iLg3 f5 21..i:.e2 f4
22.b4+ ttJac4 23.a5 ttJa8 24.lbd2
d5+) 18 ... lbac4 19.a5 ttJb2 20.
lb6c4 21.lbfd2 iLxe4 22.ttJxe4 b6
(22 ... ttJd3 23.lbc5 dxc5
ttJxe1 26.iLf6)
23.axb6 axb6
16 . ttJxa4
16 ... ttJac417.ttJxc4ttJxc418.b3
ttJa5 19Jic1 (but not 19.c4 iLg4)
19 ... d5 20.lbe5:;!;.
17.iLxf7+ 18.!:txa4:;!;.
Black has not solved the prob-
lem with his knight on a5 yet;
moreover his kingside has been
slightly compromised.
b3b) 10 ... iLg4
1l.h3
It also deserves attention
for White to continue with:
11.ttJbd2 e5 12.h3 iLf5 13.lbfl
exd4 14.cxd4 d5 15.ttJg3 iLe6 16.
iLg5 17.lbe5 18.iLf4
19.1bxc6 bxc6 20.iLe5 iLxe5
21.l:txe5:;!; - and Black remains
with a "bad' bishop and vulner-
able dark squares, Zhelnin -
Oliwa, Katowice 1995.
1l ... iLxf3
11...iLd7. Such a loss of time
does not cause any immediate
4.ttJ{3 g6 ttJb6 7.ed
worries indeed, but it can hardly
be justified. (White could
have tried 12.ttJbd2!? too.) 12 ...
I:i.eB 13.ttJbd2 .l::tcB 14.ttJe4!? (In
the game Gysi - Arnold, corr.
1997, there followed: 14.ttJh2
ttJaS IS.ttJg4 ttJxb3 16.axb3
17 :ittxg4 h6 IB.i.h4 a6 19J:te2
'ific7 20 . .l:i.ael eS 21.f4 - Black's
pawn is pinned and he has seri-
ous problems. 21..Jle6 22.fxe5
dxeS 24.dxe5 'ificS+
25.'iithl ttJd7 26.'ifid4 'ific7 27.
ttJf.H. Instead of 20 ... e5, Black
had to defend with: 20 ... e6=.)
14 ... 'ific7. (White was threatening
to capture on d6.) IS. 'ifie2 ttJa5
ttJac4 17 White
has completed the development
of his queenside, he has pre-
vented e7 -eS, because he can
counter that with a check from
the f6-square and he is slightly
better.
The move 1l ... i.fS - is once
again a direct loss of time.
12.i.gS h6 gS (this is a
serious weakening of the king-
side) 14.i.g3 eS. White main-
tains now a clear advantage
after: 15.dxeS dxeS 16.ttJbd2
'ific7 17.h4! g4 IB.ttJd4! ttJxd4
19.cxd4. In the game Otero -
Wohl, Havana 2001, there fol-
lowed: 19 ... .:.feB 20J:tcl 'ifid6 21.
ttJe4 'ifig6 22.hS 'ifixhS 23.ttJd6
l:te7 24.dxeS i.g6 2S.e6 fS 26. 'ifid2
l':tdB 27 . .l:i.cS 'iith7 2B.'ifiaS 'ifigS
29.ttJxfS i.xfS 30.'uxfS and Black
lost a pawn and soon after that
the game as well.
12.'ifixf3
12 ... e5
The inclusion of the moves
12 ... as and 13.a4 can hardly be
useful for Black. The weakening
of the queenside is quite unnec-
essary for Black in this case.
13 ... d5 14.i.g5 h6 (Black should
better avoid the creation of ad-
ditional weaknesses - 14 ... 'ifid7
IS.ttJd2;!;, followed by 'ifig3 and
ttJf.3.) 15.i.h4 gS e6 17.
ttJa3 ttJa7 (This prevents White's
move ttJbS indeed, but Black's
knight gets terribly misplaced.)
IB.i.eS ttJd7 19. 'ifid3 ttJf6
20.i.eS :eB 21..!:i.e3t) IB ... ttJbcB,
E.Join - San Sebastian, Tarbes
2003, and here after the interest-
ing line for White: f6
20.'ifid3 I:i.f7 21.i.g3 22.'ifih7+
'iitfB 23Jle2 - Black's kingside
remains extremely vulnerable.
In case of 12 ... e6, instead of
13.i.e3 dS 14.ttJd2 ttJcB IS . .ic2
ttJd6, Glaser - Rufenacht, corr.
1994 - it becomes clear that
White's bishop on e3 is mis-
placed, so he must continue with:
13.i.f4;!; L1'ifig3 and after 13 ... d5
the game transposes to the line:
12 ... dS.
12 ... dS 13.i.f4 f6. This is a
very risky move - Black tries to
195
Chapter 12
build up a pawn-centre, but it
will come under a powerful pres-
sure by White's pieces and the
bishop on b3 in particular. In the
game G.Kuzmin - Solozhenkin,
St. Petersburg 1997, White man-
aged to exploit the power of his
bishops and he organized an at-
tack against Black's central
pawns: 14 . .i.g3 e5 15.dxe5 fxe5
16. (It is better for Black
to play: 16 ... 17.lDd2
18.hxg4 19.1:tad1 J::[ad8 20.
lDfl;tJ 17 .lDa3lZJd7 18.J::[ad1lDf6
Black had lost so much
time on his maneuver with the
knight that he failed to hold
his centre. 19 ... d4 (19 ... e4 20.lDb5
l:tc8 21.lZJd6 J::i.c7 22 . .i.xd5+-)
20.lDc4 l:te8 21..i.a4 lDd7 (21...
lDh5 22 . .i.h2lZJf4 24.
lDxd5 25.lZJd6+-) 22.lDd6
23 . .i.xc6 bxc6 24.cxd4 and
Black resigned, because of the
line: 24 ... exd4 Instead
of 17 ... lZJd7, A.Finkel recom-
mended 17 ... 18J::r.ad1
but White could counter that
with 19.c4 destroying Black's
central pawns. (19.3 l:!.ad8 20.
i.f2 lDc8 21.l:!.e2 lD8e7) 19 ... lDd4
(19 ... h5 dxc4 21..i.c2 i.f6
22. 23.i.xg6 h4 24.
.i.h2;t and Black's pawns are
quite vulnerable in that end-
game, for example: 24 ... .l:i.ad8
25 . .i.e4 ttJb4 26.i..xb7 ttJd3 27.l:!.e3
lDxb2 28.lhd8 .l::i.xd8 29 . .i.xe5
i..xe5 30JIxe5 .i:td1+ 31.'it>h2;t)
20.cxd5 ttJxb3 21.axb3 lZJxd5
22.ttJc4;t, Black's central pawn is
very weak, for example: 22 ... lDf6
196
(23.lZJxe5
lDh5) 23 ... e4
If after: 12 ... d5 13.i..f4 Black
does not play 13 ... f6, White
should better choose the plan
with appropriate actions on the
kingside - ttJb1-d2-f3-e5
and h3-h4-h5:
After 13 ... e6, instead of the some-
what chaotic reaction by White:
14.a4 ttJc8 15.lDa3 a6 16.g4 ttJd6
17 . .i.c2 18 . .i.d3 l:tac8 19.
lUd8, Kolu - Haara, Finland
1986 - his pawn advances on
both sides of the board and the
development of the knight to the
a3-square are not a part of a con-
sistent plan - he had better
play: 14.lZJd2 lZJc8 (15.
15 ... lZJ8e7 16.i..c2;t, fol-
lowed by lDd2-f3;
13 ... (Black's
tries to play too much with the
rook were not convincing at all
after: 14 .. J:tae8 15.l:!.ad1 e6 16.
-16.h4!?t-16 .. J:td8, Pascot
- Desurmont, Morbihan 2004,
and here White had to play
17.h4!?t, because it was an
obligatory move anyway.) and in
this position, instead of 15.i..c2
ttJbc4 16.ttJb3 b6 17.lDxa5 ttJxa5
4.lb{3 g6 5.i.c4 lbb6 7.ed
lSJle2liacS 19J:tae1 e6 20.h4 b5
21.h5 Serra - Pont Mulet,
Palma de Mallorca 2001, White
had to try: 15.h4!? lbxb3 16.
axb3;j; - because it was not nec-
essary to preserve the bishop on
b3 from its being exchanged.
13.dxe5 dxe5 14.iLe3
It also deserves attention for
White to play 14.a4!?, for ex-
ample: 14 ... lba5 15.iLa2 :IcS
(15 ... lbxa4 16.b4 lbc6 17.iLb3
lbb6 lS.b5 lbe7 15 ...
"f!ic7 16.b4 lbc6 17.a5 lbcs IS.
lbd2;j;) 16.b4 lbc6 17.b5!? (17.
a5!?t) 17 ... lba5 lS.iLa3 with the
threat iLb4.
14 .. "f!ic7
It is not good for Black to play
what the computers have done
in games between them i.e.:
14 ... lba5, because after: 15.iLc5
lbxb3 16.axb3 :eS :bS
18."f!ia6 lbd7 19.iLb4 iLf8 20.iLxf8
lbxf8 21.b4 - White remains
with a solid extra pawn.
14 .. 15.i.xb6!? ab 16.lbd2
lba5 17.iLd5 liadS IS. :adU.
White's bishop is presently much
better than its black counterpart,
meanwhile Black's knight is ob-
viously misplaced too. Later, in
the game Reijnen - Rozier, En-
gland 1995, there followed: IS ...
lId7 19.1bf1 licS (Black should
better play: 19 .. JIfdS!? 20.lbe3;j;)
20.lbe3 lidc7? (he should have
simply retreated his rook back ... )
21.b4 lbc6 22.iLb3+- and here
after lbd5 Black loses material
unavoidably.
15.lba3
The other route for the knight
- 15.lbd2 - enables White to
place it on the e4-square, but it
does not create the threat lbb5.
15 ... lba5 (It is much worse for
Black to defend here with: 15 ...
16.iLc5 lifdS 17.lbe4 f5 IS.
lbg5 l1d7 19.iLe6 e4 20."f!ie2 lbe5,
Adithya - Kobernat, Virginia
Beach 2005, because White could
have won the game immediately
with: 21..i.xb6 axb6 22.i.xd7
"f!ixd7 23J:ted1 lbd3 24.lbf3+-)
16.lbe4 lbxb3 17.axb3 f5==.
15 ... a6?!
Naturally, Black must pre-
vent the subsequent maneuver of
the white knight, but he should
have done that only after the pre-
liminary inclusion of the line:
15 ... lba5 16.i.c2 lbbc4 17.lbxc4
ttJxc4 lS . .tg5 h6 19.i.c1 ItfdS and
without the weakening of his
queenside with: 20.b3 lbb6=,
White will not manage to com-
plete his development.
Accordingly, White should not
retreat his bishop to the c2-
square, but he should better
bring his rook into action: 16.
lbxb3 17.axb3 a6 (17 ... f5 IS.
lbb5;j;) lS.c4 (lS.i.xb6!? "f!ixb619.
197
Chapter 12
~ d 7 ~ x b 3 20J'hb7) 18 ... :ad819.
c5 ttJd7 20.b4t and White deploys
his knight to the d6-outpost via
c4 and he seizes the initiative.
(diagram)
16 . .ic5. Black's rook cannot
retreat now, because of the
capturing on b6 and fl, so sud-
denly Black is pinned all over
the board. 16 .. ttJe7 17 . .ib4
'iith8 18.:adl ttJbc8 19 . .ia4+
and Black cannot prevent the de-
cisive penetration of White's
rook - .l:r.d7, P.Schneider - Non-
nenmacher, corr. 1996.
Conclusion
Presently, the 4 ... g6 variation of the Alekhine Defence is one of
the most popular for Black. After 5 . .ic4, he has two good lines 5 ... c6
and 5 ... ttJb6 6 . .ib3 iLg7.
In case of 5 ... c6, White should better play: 6.exd6 ~ x d 6 7.0-0,
after which he completes his piece-development and follows with ttJb 1-
d2-e4. The position is of a semi-open type and White can react suc-
cessfully, or even prevent altogether, Black's undermining pawn-
breaks c6-c5 and e7-e5.
Following 5 ... ttJb6 6 . .ib3 .ig7 - I recommend the line: 7.exd6 cxd6
8.0-00-0 9 . .l:r.e1 ttJc6 10.c3. White trades pawns on d6 indeed and
thus he reduces his space advantage on the kingside, but he liqui-
dates Black's counterplay against the e5-pawn and he obtains the
semi-open e-file for his rook.
Black then has two basic plans. The first is to play d6-d5, but
White can counter that by completing his development and he can
gradually prepare effective kingside operations. He can also exploit
the e5-square for his knight in this case.
The other plan for Black is connected with the preparation of e7-
e5 and White should either exchange on e5 (particularly in the lines
in which Black plays .ic8-g4, because then White has the two bishop
advantage), or he can also exploit the drawbacks of Black's position
in some other fashion.
198
Chapter 13 l.e4 lLlf6 2.e5 lLld5 3.d4 d6 4.lLlf3
ii..g4
This is the main line for
Black. He develops his light
squared bishop pinning White's
knight on f3. As for his other
bishop - the one on f8 - it is usu-
ally developed to the e7 square
after e7 -e6 and hardly ever
fianchettoed.
5 . .i.e2 ltJc6
This is a natural move and it
is an essential part of Black's
plan. It is however too early for
him to determine the placement
of this knight, because it can eas-
ily be attacked by White in many
lines either by the bishop on f3
(after the exchange), or by a
pawn, after d4-d5.
Black moves also 5 ... c6 (Chap-
ter 14) and 5 ... e6 (Chapter 15).
About 5 .. 6.0-0 lbc6 -
see 5 ... ltJc6 6.0-0 'd7.
Black are very seldom played:
5 ... .i.xf3. White often plays
h2-h3 in many lines, because this
exchange is considered to be very
advantageous for him. So, if
Black trades his bishop here,
without any need - that is just
supposed to be a loss of time.
6 . .i.xf3 c6 (or 6 ... dxe5? 7.c4ltJb6
8 . .i.xb7 exd4 9.c5+- Christ -
Gruettner, Giessen 1991; 6 ... e6?
7.c4 ltJb6 8 . .i.xb7+- Gauche -
Carvalho, Guarapuava 1992)
7.c4 - see 5 ... c6 6.c4
5 ... 'c8. This move might
turn out to be useful for Black in
some lines indeed, but still it
does not contribute to his devel-
opment at all. 6.0-0 ltJc6, Thom-
son - Walls, Aberdeen 2004, 7.h3
8.c4 (it is almost similar af-
ter 8.exd6 cxd6 9.1:.e1;t e6 10.c4
ltJb6 11.d5) 8 ... ltJb6 9.exd6 cxd6
10.1:.e1 and if 10 ... (10 ... e6
11.d5), then ltJxc4 12.
ltJc31' and White has an excellent
compensation for the pawn, be-
cause Black has not completed
his development at all and the
position is quite opened;
199
Chapter 13
5 ... dxe5?! This move is very
unsatisfactory for Black, because
it enables White to develop his
knight to an ideal square with
tempo. 6.ctJxe5 .lixe2
This position is again very diffi-
cult for Black - White is threat-
ening to check on b5 and then
attack the fl -square:
Black has often tried in prac-
tice here 7 ... c6? and White never
managed to find the simple way
to obtain a great advantage i.e.:
B. 9. with a double
attack against b7 and fl;
Black simply loses a pawn af-
ter: 7 ... e6?! ctJd7 9.ctJxd7
10. t'txb7 M.Shulman -
Patrick, Canada 1963, or 7 ...
B.t'tb5+ c6
10. ctJxb4 11.ctJa3+- Putz-
bach - Engels, Pinneberg 199B;
Following 7 ... ctJd7? it becomes
very effective for White to sacri-
fice a piece, just like in the lines
well-familiar to us from Chapter
11: B.ctJxfl! 'it>xfl 9. 'it>e6
10.c4 ctJ5f6 (10 ... ctJ5b6 11.d5+
'it>d6 12. t'tf5) 11.d5+ 'it>d6 12.
Here, contrary to the variations
in Chapter 11, Black's bishop is
not on cB and after the unavoid-
200
able check on the e6-square -
Black's king would be forced to
make a trip into White's camp ...
12 ... e5 13.t'te6+ 'Ot>c5 14 . .lie3+
'it>b4 15.a3+ 'Ot>a4 (15 ... 16.
ctJd2+ 17.b3+ 1B.b4+

e4 (17 ... .lic5 lB.
ctJxe4 ctJxe4 19. ctJc5 20 .
.lixc5 t'teB (20 ... .lixc5
22.h4+-) 22 .
.lixe3 .lid6 23.0-0-0.
Black's only possible reason-
able move left is 7 ... ctJb6, for ex-
ample: B.ctJc3. (Black can now
counter B.t'tf3 with B ...
B ... g6 (B ... t'txd4? 9.ctJb5
B ... e6 9.ctJe4
(Black has defended against the
threat t'th5, with his previous
move, while now in case of9.
he has the resource 9 ... f6, which
in fact is not enough to equalize
either.) 9 ... ctJBd7 (9 ... .lig7? 10.
ctJxfl n.ctJg5+ 12.ctJe6
13.ctJxg7+ 14 . .lih6; 9 ...
10.ctJf6+! exf6 1l.ctJc6+)
10 . .lif4 and once again Black
cannot play 10 ... .lig7?, because of
11.ctJxf7 12.ctJg5+ and his
lag in development has become
really critical for his survival.
5 .. c5. This move is a bit
strange, because in the 4 ...
.lig4 line Black usually attacks
White's centre with pieces and
not with pawns. There is no di-
rect refutation ofthat move, but
White can maintain his opening
advantage in several different
ways. There was only one game
played in that position - Za-
1.e4 CiJf6 2.e5 CiJd5 3.d4 d6 4.CiJf3 iLg4 5.iLe2
charias - Sislian, Germany 2002,
and there after 6.0-0 Black
played the terrible move 6 ...
iLxf3? and he could have lost the
game immediately after: 7.iLxf3
dxe5 8.dxc5 e6 9.c4+-. Naturally
it would have been better for
Black to play: 6 ... CiJc6 7.c4 (7.
exd6 8.c4 CiJf4 9.iLxf4
7.h3 iLxf3 8.iLxf3 dxe5
9.c4 CiJb6 10.dxc5 1l.':'xd1
tDxc4 12.tDc3 e6 13.b3 tD4a5
14.tDb5 ':'c8 15.iLe3 f5co) 7 ... CiJb6
8.e6 iLxf3 9.iLxf3 cxd4 10.exf7+

13.iLe3 c5 14. 15.tDc3;!;.
Black had better capture the
pawn: 8 ... fxe6 9.dxc5 dxc5 and he
would have had some counter-
chances, because of the weak-
ened d4-square.
White however, having in
mind that it is unfavourable for
Black to capture on f3, could im-
prove his play too with: 6.h3 .if5
(The move 6 ... iLh5 enables White
to push e5-e6: 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.e6
fxe6 9.tDe5 iLxe2 10. or
9.tDg5 iLxe2 1l.
tDxe6t) 7.CiJh4 (7.dxc5!? dxc5
8.CiJh4 iLe6 9.f4 g6 10.0-0;!;)
7 ... iLd7 8.c4 CiJb4 9.a3 tD4a6
10.tDf3 cxd4 (10 ... e6 11.exd6
iLxd6 12.dxc5 iLxc5 13.b4 iLe7
14.iLb2;!;, or 1l.dxc5 dxc5 12.0-0
tDc6 13.iLf4 iLe7 14.tDc3;!;) 1l.
b4!? This move isolates Black's
knight on a6 completely and cre-
ates the threat for White to cap-
ture on d6: 1l ... dxe5 12.CiJxe5
iLc6 13.0-0t. Black cannot pro-
tect his d4-pawn anymore and
the difference in piece-placement
is more than evident. 13 ..
(in case of 13 ... f6, White can play:
14.iLh5+ g6 15.CiJxg6 hxg6 16.
iLxg6+ 18.
19.b5 iLxg2 - oth-
erwise Black would simply re-
main a pawn down - 20.bxa6
CiJxa6 ':'g8 22J:td1+
23.tDc3 lhg6+ 14.iLf4
CiJd7 15.c5 tDxe5
17. 18.iLxe5;
5 .. tDb6. This move is reason-
able enough - Black retreats his
knight in advance, against the
eventual attacks with White's c4-
pawn, or with the bishop on f3,
but he loses some time in doing
that. 6.h3 iLxf3 (Black only
wastes tempi with a line that has
been played very seldom in prac-
tice: 6 ... .if5 7.0-0;!;; after 6 ... iLh5
7.e6 fxe6 8.tDg5 iLxe2
White usually regains his e6-
pawn and Black remains in a
very bad position, Vidovic -
Jankovic, Zagreb 1996.) 7.iLxf3
CiJc6 (7 ... c6 8.e6 fxe6 9 . .ig4) 8.e6
(White's advantage is only mini-
mal in the endgame after: 8.
iLxc6+ bxc6, Olsar - Pad, Czech
Republic 1995, dxe5 10.
CiJxd7 12.
dxe5 tDxe5 13.tDc3;!;, White's edge
in that line is only superficial.)
8 ... fxe6 9 . .ig4 (It is too dan-
gerous for Black to play here:
9 ... e5 10.d5 - he would not man-
age to put his knight on d4 any-
way, while after: 10 ... tDb4 11.c4t
and f2-f4, White's light
squared bishop is obviously more
201
Chapter 13
valuable than Black's extra
doubled pawn.)
10.0-0 g6 11..l:!.e1 ltJd8 12.ltJc3
(The move 12.c3, was played in
the game Raut - Grunberg,
'fusnad 2000, but it was too ten-
tative and enabled Black to play
ltJb6-d5-f6.) 12 ... i.g7 (Black can
hardly equalize after: 12 ... d5
13.ltJe2 i.g7 14.ltJf4 t:'ta4 15.i.xe6
t:'txd4 16. t:'txd4 i.xd4 17.i.xd5;!;)
13.d5 (It is not sufficient for
White to play: 13.ltJe2ltJd5 14.c4
ltJf6. He cannot achieve anything
much after: 13. t:'td3 0-0 14.d5
t:'te8 15.i.xe6+ ltJxe6 16Jhe6
or 15.dxe6ltJc6 and White
regains his pawn indeed, in
both lines, but Black manages
to develop his pieces and he ob-
tains a quite sufficient counter-
play.) 13 ... i.xc3 14.bxc3 (14.dxe6
15.bxc3 16.l:tb1
14 ... ltJxd5 15Jhe6 (It is
weaker for Black to play: 15 ...
16. l::i.f8 17.c4 ltJxe6 18.
iLxe6 20.
c6 21. because White's
bishop pair is much stronger
than Black's rook in this middle
game.) 16J::te1. White has some
compensation for the pawn in-
202
deed, but he can hardly manage
to attack Black's king effectively:
16 ... (It is possible for Black
to play here: 16 ... e5 17 .i.f3
18.iLxd5 20.
c3 or 19.f4 20.fxe5
dxe5 21.i.f4ltJc6 22.i.xc6+
23J:txe5+ and obviously
Black's king will find a safe ha-
ven.) 17.i.g5 c6 18.i.xe7 ltJxe7
0-0
White's compensation for the
pawn is probably satisfactory in
that position, but not more ...
White here to try to transpose
the move order i.e. 10.ltJc3!?
Now, Black's bishop is not
present on the long diagonal and
White's chances to push quickly
d4-d5 are considerably greater:
10 ... g6 (10 ... 0-0-0. This seems to
be a good developing move, but
thus Black fails to defend his e6-
pawn, because his knight has
been deprived of the d8-square
and his king gets pinned. l1.h4!?
This move is with the idea for
White to preserve his bishop on
the c8-h3 diagonal. 11.. . .l:.e8 12.
d5ltJd8 13.i.e3 and he succeeds
in regaining his pawn with a ob-
vious advantage; 10 ... ltJd8 ll.d5;!;
and White has managed to pre-
pare that important pawn-ad-
vance and to capture on e6 with-
out any counterplay for Black.)
l1.d5 ltJd8 (ll ... ltJxd5 12.ltJxd5
h5 13.ltJxc7+ 14.i.xe6;!;) 12.
I:tg8 13.dxe6 14.h4 i.g7
15. Black's position is sub-
stantially cramped;
l.e4 lbf6 2.e5 tiJd5 3.d4 d6 4.lbf3 5 . .i.e2
The line 5 ... lbd7?! 6.h3 .i.h5,
permits White to sacrifice a
pawn on e6, in the standard fash-
ion, in order to restrict Black's
possibilities considerably: 7.e6!
fxe6 S.lbg5 i.f7 9.i.g4 Koning
- Tern, Munchen 1936 and White
regains easily his pawn with a
great advantage. There might
follow: 10 ... lbxg4 1l.cxd5 lbf6
12. c6 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.
lbd7 15.lbxf7 <t;xf7 16.
l2Jc3 and Black's king remains
seriously endangered, his e6-
pawn is weak, while the mate-
rial is equal. In order to preserve
his extra pawn, Black, on his
move eight, must play: S ... i.xe2
e5 10.c4 lb5f6 1l.dxe5
l2Jxe5 12.f4 lbc6 13.lbe61'. White
has a great lead in development
as a compensation for the pawn
(Black must still lose plenty of
time in order to exchange White's
knight on e6, which is like a bone
in his throat) as well as a huge
space advantage - more than
sufficient compensation alto-
gether. Later, in the game Hod-
gson - Moon, Internet 1999,
there followed: 13 ... 14.lbc3
l2JdS 15.f5 g6 (15 ... lbxe6 16.fxe6
17.i.g51') 16.i.g5 l2Jh5 17.
l2Jd5 .l:tcS and here White could
have won immediately with:
lS.0-O l2Jg3 19.1bexc7+ .l:txc7 20.
lbf6+ <t;f7 21.fxg6+ <t;g7
23. or lS.l2JxfB.l:txfB
19.1bxe7 l2Jg3 20. lbxh1 21.
l2JxcS+ <t;f7 22.0-0-0+-.
The move 5 ... g6 leads to
great difficulties for Black. In
general, the moves .i.cS-g4 and
g7 -g6 do not combine well to-
gether. 6. lbg5. This is White's
standard reaction. After the
trade on e2, White is threaten-
ing to push e5-e6 and in case
Black pushes e7 -e6 himself -
then the weakening of his king-
side will become a telling factor,
particularly the f6-square. 6 ...
i.xe2 (Black's position remains
very difficult too after: 6 ... .i.f5
7.e6 i.xe6 S.lbxe6 Xe6 9.i.g4,
for example: 9 ... <t;f7
11.0-0 l2Jf6 12.i.h3 lbc6 13.c3 -
he has defended his extra pawn
will all his pieces; nevertheless
it is doomed anyway - 13 ... .l:lgS
14.i.g5 lIeS 15.l2Jd2 l2JdS 16.
f4 <t;g7 17.c4 WhS lS.d5 i.g7 19.
l2Jf3 20.dxe6 21.Whl
and Black's position is quite
cramped, while the material
is equal, Damaso - Pinheiro,
Lisbon 1995.)
Black has now plenty of difficult
problems to solve - White is
threatening e5-e6 or with a
double attack against d5 and f7.
7 ... S.e6 fxe6 9. l2Jf6
10. 11. Hernan-
203
Chapter 13
dez - Martis, Bled 2002, as well
as 7 ... dxe5 ttJffi (Black loses
immediately after S ... f6?, be-
cause of 9.ttJe6 t'td6 10. t'txd5!,
Varnusz - Ponyi, Salgotarjan
1975.) 9.dxe5 h6 10.lLJxf7!
11.exffi exffi 12.t'txb7+- Jansa-
Haik, Kladovu 19S0. Black loses
material in case of: 7 ... c6? S.e6
t'ta5+, Kasperek - Maciazek,
Kolobrzeg 2001, 9.iLd2+-. In an-
swer to 7 ... h6, in the game
Klovans - Vojtkevic, USSR 1962,
there followed: S.ttJxf7!
9. t'tf3+ 10.c4 ttJb6 11.d5+
and here after:
12 .. .'.t>eS13.t'txg6+ 14.t'tf5+
15.e6 t'tcS 16.b3+- LliLb2,
White wins again. Black played
much better in the game: Mrdja
-Joguet, Le Touquet 2001: 7 ... e6
S.c4 ttJb6 (S ... ttJb4? 9. t'tf3 f6
10.ttJxe6 t'tcS 11. t'txf6 J:tgS 12.
ttJa3+-) 9.t'tf3 (It is worse
for Black to play: 9 ... t'te7 10.
t'txb7 ttJSd7 11.ttJe4 Sion Castro
- Sanchez, Cordoba 1994. It is
too bad for Black to try here:
11 ... dxe5 12.c5, because he loses
material; it is only slightly bet-
ter for him to try: 11 ... d5 12.cxd5
t'tb4+ 13.ttJbc3 exd5 14.ttJg5
t'txd4 15.0-0-;, threatening e5-
e6, while the capturing on e5 is
just suicidal for Black, because
of the opening of the e-file.)
10.ttJe4 (Now, it is not so good for
White to play: 10. t'txb7 t'tc6
11. t'txc6+ ttJxc6, because Black
regains his pawn with an excel-
lent game.) 10 ... iLe7 1l.exd6
cxd6 12.ttJf6+ i..xf6 13. t'txf6 and
204
White has a slight edge, because
of the weakness of the dark
squares in Black's camp.
6.0-0
We will have a look now at the
lines: a) 6 ttJb6, b) 6 ... dxe5 and
c) 6 ... e6.
Black are played only seldom:
6 ... a6 (the idea of that move
is not so easy to understand, be-
cause White almost never places
his bishop on b5 in similar posi-
tions anyway) 7.h3 iLd7 (that
placement of the bishop is too
passive) S.c4. This is much more
energetic than the exchange on
d6, which was tried by White in
the game Wood - Murphy, Bel-
connen, 1996. S ... ttJb6 9.c5. White
has this resource thanks to the
placement of Black's bishop on
the d7-square. 9 ... ttJd5 (9 ... ttJcS
10. t'tb3 and the arising position
is just pathetic for Black, because
his pieces are totally misplaced.)
e6 11.iLxd5 exd5
White has managed to create
extremely dangerous threats
along the e-file. 12 ... t'tcS (or 12 ...
i..e7 13.i..xe7 t'txe7 14.exd6 cxd6
15J:te1 i..e6 16.ttJc3+-, winning
1.e4lDf6 2.e5lDd5 3.d4 d6 4.lDf3 i..g4 5.iLe2
the d5-pawn) 13.exd6 cxd6 14.
!te1+ iLe6 15.lDc3 dxc5 16.lDxd5
- and Black is obviously quite
unprepared for the opening of
files on the board;
6 .. This move is useful
for Black indeed - he intends to
place his rook on dB, or even
castle long. 7.exd6 cxd6 B.h3 iLh5
9.c4lDb6.
In the game Felix - Stanek, Brno
1999, White played 10.b3t and
Black countered that with a hor-
rible positional blunder: 10 ... f6??
1l.d5 iLxf3 12.iLxf3 lDe5 13.i.e3
'f1c7 14.lDc3 and his position
became strategically hopeless
due to the gaping weakness on
the e6-square. Meanwhile, some
more sensible lines for Black
were not good enough to equal-
ize either: 10 ... d5 11.c5lDcB 12.g4
iLg6 13.lDc3 e6 14.iLf4 iLe7 15.
b4t, or 10 ... e6 11.d5 exd5 12.cxd5
iLxf3 13.iLxf3lDe5 14.iLe2t. It is
quite interesting for White to try
the energetic variation: 10.g4
iLg6 11.d5. He acquires plenty of
space and the vulnerability of his
king becomes irrelevant. Black's
kingside is not developed at all
and that is much more important
in addition to the tactical possi-
bilities for White connected with
the placement of the black queen
on the d7-square: 1l ... lDb4 (It is
too dangerous for Black to play
11...lDe5, because of 12.lDd4 h5
13.f4 iLxb1 14.lhb1 lDexc4 15.
b3+-) 12.lDh4 (12.lDd4 12 ...
iLxb1 C12 ... e5 13.lDc3 and Black
loses after 13 ... iLe7? 14.lDxg6
hxg6 15.a3 lDa6 16.c5+-. He
should play instead: 13 .. JlcB14.
a3lDa6 15.a4 'f1dB 16.lDxg6 hxg6
17.'it>g2t 1B.a5) 13.':xb1
lDxa2 14.iLd2 (14.iLe3!? lDb4
15J;[a1 lDa6 16.'f1b3 ':cB 17.
14 ... a5 lDb4 16.
iLxb4 axb417.'f1xb4t and White
opens the position enjoying a
great lead in development;
6 ... h6. This is not the best
move for Black, but it is still rea-
sonable - it prevents lDf3-g5 and
thus White fails to obtain imme-
diate advantages exploiting the
well-familiar maneuver h2-h3
and after iLg4-h5 - e5-e6! Mean-
while, Black's last move is hardly
useful for him in case of some-
what different developments on
the board. 7.c4lDb6 B.exd6 exd6
9.h3 iLh5 10.lDc3 iLe7 1l.b3 0-0
12.iLe3 d5 13.c5 lDcB, Krstevski
- Oberrauch, Herculane 1994. It
was very strong for White here
to continue with 14.b4, occupy-
ing space on the queenside with
some edge, because it is not good
for Black to play 14 ... lDxb4, be-
cause of 15.'f1b3 a5 16.a3lDc617.
lD8a7 Instead,
Black should place his bishop on
205
Chapter 13
f6 on move 14 and try to bring
his knight on c6 to the f5-square
via e7. His position would remain
worse anyway;
6 ... g6 7.h3. This is White's
most energetic line in this posi-
tion, since he deploys his power-
ful bishop on the long diagonal.
7 ... (It is not good for Black
to play here: 7 ... 8.e6! The
point is that after: 8 ... fxe6 9.g4
10.lbg5 11.lbxe6
13.c4+-; 10 ... lbf6
11.f3 12.c4, Black loses a
piece without any sufficient com-
pensation. It is also unsatisfac-
tory for him to try: 8 ... lbdb4
9.exf7+ 10.lba3 11.
c3+-; 10 ... 11.d5 lbe5 12.
lbd4+-, because his position
would be strategically hopeless,
Kleeschaetzky - Jaeger, Ilme-
nau, 1981.) dxe5 9.dxe5
White's activity in this position
more than compensates the rela-
tive vulnerability of his e5-pawn.
9 ... e6 10.c4lbde7 (lO ... lbb6 11.
bxc6 12. 10 ... lbdb4
(Black could
have obtained some counter
chances after that move, so in-
stead White had better play:
206
11. Itb8 12 . .l:.dl
and the game transposes to the
encounter Barbitskij - Smelov,
St Petersburg 2000, or 11 ...
c5
12 ... iLg7
bxc6 11 ...
(It is too dangerous for
Black to capture the pawn after:
11 ... 12Jldl 13.iLd2
.ng8 14.iLc3t) 0-0 (Here
however, Black had to try to
avoid the immediate disaster
by playing: 12 ... 13 . .l:.dl

14.lbc3 0-0 15.lbe4 f6
16.iLe3 lbf500 - White still has to
prove that he has some compen-
sation for the pawn.)
bxc6 f6 (14 .. J:te8 15.
lbc3+- and Black remains totally
pinned.) 15.exf6
l::txf6 17.lbc3. Black is left with
plenty of weaknesses to worry
about, Tischbierek - Kindl,
Balatonbereny 1987;
Similarly, after 9 ... lbdb4 (in-
stead of 9 ... e6) e6 l1.c3
(Possibly, it might be better for
White to follow with: l1.a3 lbd5
12.c4 in order to reach the same
position, except with a pawn on
a3 and not on the a2-square.)
11...lbd5 12.c4 lbde7 13.
(13. and we wit-
ness a transposition to the game
Tischbierek - Kindl, Balatonbe-
reny 1987.) 13 ... l::tb8 14J:td1
(l5 ... lbxe5
lbxf3+ 18.lbc3lbc6
19.tbe4 and despite the missing
pawn, White's position is over-
4.ltJ{3 i.g4 6.0-0 ltJb6 7.h3
whelming.) 16.iLf6 0-0
17 .. /1;;xg7 Barbitskij-
Smelov, St. Petersburg 2000 and
here White had to play IS.
defending his e5-pawn and main-
taining a stable advantage;
6 ... 7.iLxf.3 dxe5 S.dxe5
(the arising position is similar to
the one that we have already
analyzed in the line 6 ... g6, except
that Black cannot develop his
bishop to g7. His f6-square has
not been weakened, though ... )
S ... e6 (S ... ltJdb4 9.e6 fxe6 10.
12.ltJc3
13 . .i.e3 g6 14.ltJb5 0-0-0
15.ltJxa7+ ltJxa7 16 . .i.xa7 and
White remains with a superior
pawn-structure and safer king,
while the material is equal,
Shaposhnikov - Akbaev, Kolon-
taevo 1995. It was even better for
White, instead of exchanging on
c6, to play: 10 . .i.d2!?, preventing
the trade of queens and threat-
ening to capture on b4 and b7.
After 10 ... White follows
with 11..i.xb4 and it is not good
for Black to play: 12 .
.i.xc6+ bxc6 9.c4
ltJde7 10. (here, just like in
the quite similar position in the
line 6 ... g6, White must seriously
consider 10. 10 ...
Black cannot evacuate his knight
away from the e7 -square; other-
wise he cannot complete his de-
velopment, so he is forced to en-
ter quite unclear complications
while having his pieces not de-
veloped. 1l.iLg5
12.l:td1 ltJg6? 14.
iLxc6+- P.Sanchez - Burgos,
Madrid 2001; Black could have
avoided the blunder on his move
12 and played instead: 12 ... l:tb8
13.ltJc3, but it would have re-
mained quite unclear how he
could have completed his devel-
opment.) 12 . .i.xe7 iLxe7 (12 ...
<1;;xe7? 13.iLxc6 bc .l:.d8
l:td7 <1;;e8 17.
l:tdS <1;;e7 19.1tJa3!
20JUd1.l:!.d3 <1;;e8
'it>d7 23 . .l:ab1+-. Black
cannot change anything with:
17 ... 'it>e7 lS.ltJc3 19 . .l:!.fd1,
because he is forced to give up
his rook on d 7 in order to avoid
being checkmated.) 13.iLxc6+
<1;;fS 14.iLxb7 15.ltJc3;!;.
Black lags in development and
the band d-files are opened, so
his position is quite unpleasant.
His attempt to connect his rooks
with 15 ... g6, would be countered
by White with: 16.l:tab1 17.
'it>g7 18.l:tb7 and Black loses
material and his position is very
bad too. It is slightly better for
him to play 15 ... c6, but White
would follow that with 16.l:tfd1
and then ltJc3-e4.
a) 6 .. ltJb6
207
Chapter 13
The main drawback of that
unforced retreat is that after
the trade on 3, White can exploit
the possibility to capture on c6
and that would compromise
Black's pawn-structure on the
queenside.
7.h3 Si.xf3
White obtains the two bishop
advantage after that exchange.
The move 7 ... Si.h5, Fioramonti
- J.Graf, Geneve 1990 permits
the standard sacrifice: 8.e6!? iXe6
9.Si.e3 (White could have tried
the same idea - to protect the
d4-pawn and try to play next
tLlf3-g5, by playing 9.c3
10.l1eU, in order to preserve the
e-file void of pieces. The move
9.Si.e3 leads to a postponement
of the attack of the e6-square.)
9 ... 10.tLlc3 0-0-0 (Black
should have possibly refrained
from the seemingly natural
long castle and played instead:
10 ... tLld5 11.tLlg5 Si.xe2 12.the2
tLld8, although even then White
would have an excellent compen-
sation for the pawn, because the
black king would have remained
stranded in the centre.) 11.a4
Wb8 (The move 11...a5 compro-
mises Black's king-position too
much: 12.tLlg5 iLxe2 13.
h6 15.tLlxe6 16.d5
tLlxd5 17 .tLlxd5 18.l:ta3 e6
19.1:tb3+- and after the capture
on d5, White takes on b7 and fol-
lows that with l:tb3-c3.) 12.a5
tLld5 13.tLlg5 The
defects of Black's position have
remained (his kingside is not
208
well developed, his pieces are
quite passive and his king is po-
tentially vulnerable), while his
extra pawn is absolutely imma-
terial.
7 ... Si.f5. The drawback ofthat
retreat of the bishop is that af-
ter the exchange on d6, followed
by d4-d5, the black bishop can be
attacked with tempo with the
move tLl3-d4. 8.exd6 exd6 (in
case of8 ... cxd6 9.d5 tLlb4 10.tLld4
Si.d 7 11.c4, Black can develop his
kingside by either pushing his e-
pawn forward, creating plenty of
weaknesses in the centre, or by
playing: 11.. .g6 12.a3ltJa6 13.a4
Si.g7 14.a5 tLlc8 15.tLlc3 0-0 16.
Si.g5, which would lead to an ex-
tremely cramped position for
him.) 9.d5 tLle5, Sponnhem -
Appel, St Ingbert 1988, 10.c4
Si.e7 11.tLld4 Si.d7. White's advan-
tage is only slight indeed, never-
theless it is quite stable: 12.b3
0-0 13.tLlc3;l::. White has extra
space, while the mobility of the
black pieces (particularly the
knight on b6 and the bishop on
d7) is considerably restricted.
8.Si.xf3
8 ... dxe5
4.tbf3 i.g4 S.i.e2 tbc6 6.0-0 de 7.tbeS
In the game Boleslavsky -
Mikenas, Leningrad 1962, after
S ... e6 9.exd6 (in case of
9 ... cxd6 10.d5;!:; we can see the
misplacement ofthe black knight
on the c6-square and after the
forced exchange: 10 ... tbxd5 II.
i.xd5 exd5 12. Black's d6-
pawn remains very weak) 10.c3
i.e7 1l.tbd2 0-0-0
and White's attack's is much
faster than Black's counterplay:
13.a4 tbd5 14.tbc4 ':heS 15.i.d2
i.fS 16.b4. The game later
followed with: 16 ... i.d6 17.b5
tbce7 lS.tba5 tbf5 and here White
could have played 19. Llc3-c4,
or even the more aggressive:
19.94 tbh4 20.c4. Both lines win
material for White by force
and Black has no compensation
whatsoever.
9.i.xc6+ bxc6 lO.dxe5
It is not very sensible for
Black to play here: 10 ...
tbd712.f4 e613.tbc3
14.tbe4 i.e7 15.i.e3 0-0 16.c4
1:tadS 17.b3 tbb6 lS.1:tad1 h6
and it becomes obvious
that Black has preserved the
queens on the board simply in
vain - his queen on a5 is mis-
placed, just like the rest of his
light pieces, Simkin - Petrak,
Prague 2005.
l1.1:txdl e6
White now begins to restrict
the mobility of Black's pieces.
12.b31:td8
Black hardly changes much
with: 12 ... i.e7 13.i.b2 0-0 14.
tbd2 ':fdS 15.tbe4
Itd5 17.c4;!:; Traeger - Zeitz, Ger-
many 1990.
14.i.b2 i.e7

16.tbc3;t; Wurschner - Cardo-
so Garcia, corr. 2001. White
maintains his space advantage
and he controls reliably the cen-
tral squares. Black's queenside
pawns remain chronically weak.
After White centralizes his king,
he can prepare a pawn-offensive
with f2-f4, g2-g4 etc.
b) 6 dxe5 7.tbxe5
7 ... tbxe5
7 ... i.xe2 S. tbxd4. (It is
too dangerous for Black to accept
the pawn-sacrifice - he should
better trade on e5 and transpose
to the main line: S ... tbxe5 9.dxe5
- see 7 ... tbxe5; S ... 9.tbxc6
209
Chapter 13
10.c4 tbf6 12.
tbc3 e6 13.tbb5!. Black's lag in
development is too great and
in the game Malisauskas - Fio-
ramonti, Bern 1992, White ex-
ploited that quickly with: 13 ...
0-0-0 14.i.f4 l:td7 15.b4 tbeB
16.l1abl tbd6 17 .i.xd6
IB . .l:tb3 c6 19.1:ta3 20.tbxd6+
1::txd6 21.c5 winning a rook; Black
does not have any real chances
to equalize after: B ... e6 9.tbxc6
bxc6 10.c4 tbf6 11. 12.
i.g5 i.e7 13.tbc3 0-0 14.l:.adl;!;,
because his doubled pawns are
too weak, Kofman - Mikenas,
USSR 1942.) c5 (It- de-
served attention for Black to try
here: 9 ... fxe5
12. 0-0-0, Lausten -
Vio, IECC 2000. White still main-
tains some advantage after:
13.tba3 tbf6 a6 15.i.f4;t,
because his pieces are active and
his pawn-structure is superior.)
10.i.e3 a6 11.tbc3! e6 12.iLxd4
tbb6. (It is too bad for Black to
play: 12 ... because
his king is forced to go to the e7-
square, since after: 13 ... b5 White
has 14.tbxb5+-.) 13 .. cxd4
14.tba4 tbxa4 (The alternative
for Black here is - 14 .. . tbd5 - but
after iLe7
17 . .l:f.adl l!tcB l:txc2 19.
tbc6 he loses a pawn without
any compensation.) 15.
17.l!tfel.
Black has some material advan-
tage indeed, but he fails to de-
fend his king in the centre.
(White is threatening c2-c4 and
210
in case of - while the
capture on c3 would be countered
with .l:f.adl.) 17 ... tLlc5. (Black
could have tried to defend with
17 ... tbxb2, in order to prevent
White's rook from coming to dl,
but his position is hopeless any-
way: IB.l:i.abl i.a3 :eB
20.c4 dxc3 21.tbf7+ ci;e7 22.tbh6+
ci;d 6 23. c5 24. tbf7 + cj;;e 7
Black cannot defend
against White's threats with:
17 ... i.c5 IB.c4
Korneev - Rojo Huerta, Corunha
2000.) IBJ1adl 19.c3 d3 20.
b4 d2 21..1:.e2 tbd7 22.tbf3+- and
Black resigned, because of the
unavoidable material losses af-
ter the capture on d2, Thorstein
- C.Hansen, Reykjavik 19B5.
8.dxe5
8 iLxe2
B ... iLcB?! - is a very strange
move. 9.c4 tbb6 WxdB
11.tbc3 Poitras - Hladek, Rich-
mond 2002.
It is possible for Black to try
the seldom played move: B .. . i.e6
(he is now forced to develop his
other bishop on the g7 -square,
but it is misplaced there, because
its scope of action is restricted by
4.CiJ{3 il.g4 S . .Jl.e2 ctJc6 6.0-0 de 7.CiJeS
the e5-pawn) 9.c4 (9.ctJd2!?
10.ctJf.3 0-0-0 11.c4 ctJb6) 9 ... ctJb6
10.b3 (Unfortunately for White,
he achieves nothing much with:

c6 13.ctJc3 14Jlac1 .ltfS and
it is quite unclear how he can
break through, while Black still
has an extra pawn to rely on.)
10 ... 11 . .l:Ixd1 c6 12.ctJc3
ctJd7 13.f4 g5. This move is sen-
sible; otherwise the g7 -bishop is
doomed to remain passive. 14.g3
gxf4 15.gxf4 f6 16 . .lth5+ 'litdB
17.ctJe4 (17.ctJe2 fxe5 1B.fxe5 'litcB
19.ctJf4 .ltfS 20 . .ltb2 .lth6o. It is
possibly better for White to con-
tinue with: 17.exf6!? exf6 1B.'litf2
<J;c7 19 . .ltb2 l:te1, lIadl.)
17 ... 'it>c7 1B . .ltb2 .lth6 (it is too
bad for Black to play here: lB ...
l:tgB+ 19.'it>f2 fxe5? 20.ctJg5 and
in the game Lurje - Wolff, Swit-
zerland 1994, Black lost the ex-
change, because in case of 20 ...
.ltf5 21..ltf7 J:Ig7, White would
follow with: 22 . .lte6+-) 19.exf6
exf6= and White has no real ad-
vantage at all. He should better
try 12.ctJd2, in order to manage
to defend his e5-pawn with his
bishop and also later to be able
to choose between two maneu-
vers with the knight ctJd2-f.3-d4
(g5), or ctJd2-e4-g5(c5). White
maintains a slight advantage
in the endgame, for example:
12 ... ctJd7 (12 ... g6 13.ctJe4 ctJd7
14.f4;;1;) 13 . .ltb2 g6 14.ctJf.3
or ctJd4.
It is also acceptable for Black
to play: B ... .ltfS 9.c4 ctJb6 (It is
worse for him to try: 9 ... ctJb4
10. ctJc6. In comparison to
the line 9 ... ctJb6, Black has pre-
sented his opponent with an ex-
tra tempo for the development
of the rook: llJld1 .ltd7 12.e6!
fxe6 13. g6 14 . .ltg4 .ltg7 15.
16.ctJc3 ctJe5. Black can-
not castle anyway, while the
retreat of the knight to dB is
too passive. 17 . .lth6.ltf6 1B . .lth3
ctJfl 19 . .l:.xd7! 20 . .ltxe6
21.l:.d1 .ltxc3 22.htxdB+ ':xdB 23.
.ltxf7 + 'litxfl 24. 25.g4;;!;.
Black's king is seriously endan-
gered and his pieces are too
passive, so a queen and a pawn
are evidently stronger than
two rooks, Dannberg - Cafferty,
corr. 1965.) e6 (10 ...
11..lte3 Preissmann -
Fioramonti, Geneve 1992, 12 .
.l:tdl. Contrary to the similar po-
sition in the line B ... .lte6, Black's
bishop does not pin the c4-pawn
and he fails to consolidate his
position with the move 12 ... c6,
because of 13.c5. In case Black
tries to defend his b7 -pawn with
12 ... .lte4, White plays 13.CiJc3
.ltc6 14.c5 ctJd7 15.CiJb5+-. He is
threatening f2-f4 and Black
would surely fail to hold on to
his extra pawn with his king
stranded in the centre.) 11.l:td1
(It is considerably weaker
for Black to play 11 ... Mter
12.ctJc3 g5 13 . .ltf3 c6 14.ctJb5!
White obtains a decisive advan-
tage: 14 ... .lth6 15.ctJd6+
16 . .lte3 17.ctJxf5 exf5 lB.
.Jl.c5+ Wg7 19 . .ltd6+- E.Alekseev
211
Chapter 13
- Kupreichik, Ekaterinburg
2002. It is also bad for Black to
try the move: 12 ... c6, because of
the same reason: 13.lt:Jb5 cxb5
14. ltJd7 15.i.g5+-; Black
loses after: 12 ...
14.c5 15. but
he could have possibly defended
more stubbornly with 12 ... a6,
preparing either or
c5, but still after 13.lt:Ja4
14. 15.lt:Jxb6 cxb6
16.a3 17 the endgame
is very difficult for Black.) 12.
13 . .l:.d4;t:. Presently,
White prevents Black from cas-
tling long. His position is clearly
better - he leads in development
and he has extra space. Later, in
the game Korneev - Panchenko,
Berga 1996, there followed:
13 ... 14.h4 c5 (14 ...
15 . .l:.d1 0-0 16.h5
.l:.xb1) 15 . .:td1 i.c2 16 . .l:.e1
17J:txb1 18.l:i.d1ltJd7 19.a3!?
(db4) This is a positional pawn-
sacrifice, which is not quite nec-
essary in that situation indeed,
but still after: 19 ... (or
19 ... lt:Jxe5 20.i.f4 f6 t and
i.xe6) 0-0-0 2l.i.f4
h6 23.i.f3t 23 ...
e5 24.i.g3 25.i.g4
26.b4l::the8 27.bxc5
b6 29.l::tb5 White could
have won immediately with the
move 30.i.f3+-.

Black should not blunder a
pawn with: 9 ... e6? 10.
11. :d8 12.c4 ltJb4 13.i.g5
ltJc2 14.i.xd8 15.lt:Jc3ltJxal
212
16J:td1 +- Hmadi - Srivachi-
ranov, Erevan 1996.
It is also wrong to permit
White to push e5-e6: 9 ... c6?!
10.e6 f5 11.i.g5 g6 12.c4 ltJb6
13.:d1 (13 ... 14.ltJc3)
14.c5ltJa4 (14 ... ltJd5 15 . .l:.xd5+-)
15. +- Zarnicki -
Bulcourf, Buenos Aires 1995.
9 ... (this move is too pas-
sive in comparison to 9 ...
10.c4 It:Jb4 11. e6 12.lt:Jc3ltJc6
13J:te1 g6 (Black would have pre-
ferred to avoid playing that
move, but in case he had devel-
oped his bishop along the a3-f8
diagonal, White had the resource

and Black's position is difficult,
because he cannot castle due to
his numerous weaknesses on the
kingside, Palac - Gazik, Zillertal
1993 .
10.c4
IO ... ltJb4
It is not good now for Black
to play 10 ... ltJb6 (his knight is
much more passive here in com-
parison to the c6-square) 1l.ltJc3
e6 12.i.g5 h6 13.i.h4 14.
,U,fd1 g5 (This move compromises
Black's kingside considerably,
4.ttJ[3 i.g4 5 . .fLe2 ttJc6 6.0-0 e6 7.c4
but he cannot solve his prob-
lems with: 14 ... iLb4 15.ttJb5 a6
16. and ttJd4) 15.iLg3 h5
(It is too bad for Black to play:
15 .. 16. thc4 ttJxc4 17.
ttJb5 .tIcB 1B . .l:i.ac1 ttJxb2 19.1:i.d2
ttJa4 20.ttJxc7 + <j;;e7 2 1. ttJd5 + ) 16.
h4 iLe7 17.hxg5 iLxg5 1B.ttJe4
iLe7 Black's position is
quite weakened now and in
the game Brinckmann - Schoen-
mann, Bremen 1927, there fol-
lowed 1B ... iLe7 ttJd7 20.
b4 0-0-0 (The move 20 ... h4 does
not help much: 21.iLh2 h3 22.b5
23.l:i.ac1 24J:Ixc7 l:i.dB
25.l:i.xb7 26.ttJffi+ iLxffi 27.
exf6 .l:i.gB 21.b5
22J:lac1 24.
(24 ... h4 25 . .l:i.c4+-)
h4 26J:txc7+ 27.
'it>cB 2B . .l:i.c1+ and White
won.
1l . .l:i.d1 12.ttJc3 ttJc6 13.
i.e3 a6
Black loses after: 13 ..
14.ttJb5 ncB 15. .l:i.dB 16.
':'xdl+ (16 ... e6 17 . .l:i.xdB+-)
17Jhdl f6 (or 17 ... e6
i.d6 19.f4 20.lL'lxc7+-) lB.
'it>f7 19.ttJxc7+-. Following
13 ... g6? White can simply win
a pawn: 14.ttJb5 l:tcB 15.ttJxa7
ttJxa7 16.iLxa7 iLg7 (after 16 ... b6
White plays 17.c5+- and Black
fails to trap the bishop) 17.i.d4
0-0 IB.iLc3 c6 20.
Kindermann - Siegel,
Munich 1993.
14.f4 e6
(diagram)
15.a3;!;. White has a better
development and plenty of space
and his rook is ready to pen-
etrate Black's seventh rank.
c) 6 . e6 7.c4
7 .. ttJb6
In case of7 ... iLxf.3 B.iLxf.3 ttJb6
(Black loses a piece after: B ...
ttJdb4? 9.d5 lL'lxe5 10. c6
Kwong-Bailen, USA
199B; B ... ttJde7 9.exd6
10.lL'lc3 - see 7 ... lL'lde7 B.exd6
9.lL'lc3 i.xf.3 10.iLxf.3) 9.
exd6 cxd6 10.lL'lc3 it is too dan-
gerous for Black to capture the
pawn with: 10 ... ttJxc4. After
Il.d5! White's threats are ex-
tremely dangerous: 11. .. ttJ6e5
(11...exd5 12.iLxd5 ttJb6
ttJxd5 14.ttJxd5l:tbB 15.l:te1+ iLe7
16.i.g5 ffi 17 .i.d2 Reig - Cardo-
na, Spain 2004) 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.
iLxb7 .&tbB 14.iLa6 iLe7? (Black
213
Chapter 13
should better try: 14 ... d5 15.b3
.lib4 16.ctJa4) 15 . .lixc4 ctJxc4
Goe-
rens - Kries, Luxemburg 2000.
The best for Black here is: 10 ...
.lie7 11.d5 exd5 12.ctJxd5;t Celis
- Bulcourf, Buenos Aires 1995,
except that following 12 ... ctJxd5,
White must capture on d5 not
with the pawn, as in the game,
because that only closes the di-
agonal for the bishop, but with
the bishop, or with the queen and
then his advantage is consider-
able.
The move 7 ... ctJde7 does not
contribute to Black's develop-
ment. White opens the position
with 8.exd6
And now:
8 ... cxd6 9.d5! provides a huge
advantage for him, for example:
9 ... exd5 10.cxd5 .lixf3 (l0 ... ctJe5
11.J::te1 ctJ7g6?? 12.ctJxe5 ctJxe5
13 . .lixg4 .lie7 14. 15.
.lie2+- Keres - Halaczinsky, corr.
1936. Naturally, Black did not
need to blunder a piece, but still
it is quite unclear how he could
have completed his development
in this line - in case of 11. .. .ixf3,
White could have made a good
214
use of the transposition of moves
and played: ctJd7 13 .
after which Black sim-
ply has nothing to move.) 11.
.ltxf3ctJe5 12.ctJc3ctJ7g6
'it>xd7 15 . .lte2;
Black often tries in practice
here: 8 ... 9.ctJc3 .ltxf3 (It is
bad for him to play: 9 ... 0-0-0?
10.ctJg5 11.ctJxe2 and Black's
f7 -pawn is defenseless: 11 ...
ctJxd4 12.ctJc3! f6 13.ctJf7
14.ctJxh8+- Djaja - Janosevic,
Belgrade 1948, or 9 ... lbf5? 10.d5
ctJce7 11. c6 12.c5!
Schoenmann - En-
gert, Hamburg 1932. It is insuf-
ficient for Black to try: 9 ... ctJg6?!
10.d5! exd5 11.cxd5 .ltxf3 12.
gxf3! ctJce5 13.ctJb5 14.f4
Aronin - Mikenas, USSR 1951
and now it is bad for him to play:
14 ... ctJf3+ 15 . .lixf3 16.l:e1+
.lte7 17.f5 ctJh4 18Jhe7 + 'i;xe7
19 . .lig5+-, as well as: 14 ... ctJh4
15.fxe5 16.ctJxc7+ 'i;d8 18.
ctJe6+! 'i;e7 19 . .lig5+-. The move
9 ... a6 is only slightly better, but
in the game Louma - Kracmar,
Chomutov 1954, White coun-
tered it with: 1O.ctJe4 1l.ctJc5
b6 12.ctJb3;t, he defended his d4-
pawn and obtained a slight ad-
vantage. Instead, it is more en-
ergetic for White to play: 10.d5
exd5 11.cxd5 .lixf3 12 . .lixf3 ctJe5
Black is now forced to
castle queenside and White can
already operate on the open c-
file. The placement of the black
knight on the e5-square is a bit
unstable too. There might follow:
4.liJ{3 iLg4 5.i..e2 liJc6 6.0-0 e6 7.c4
13 ... 0-0-0 14.i.e3. Now, all at-
tempts by Black to develop his
kingside have certain drawbacks
too, for example: 14 ... liJ7g6 15.
l:tc1 i.e7 16.i.e2t and the natu-
ral move 16 ... .l:theB? is bad, be-
cause of 17.f4 liJd7 1B.liJe4
19.1:tc4 20.d6+-; 14 ... liJf5
15.i.f4 liJxf3+ 17.
l:tac1;!;; 14 ... g6 i.g7 16.
and White's
threats are quite serious now, for
example: 17 ... i.xc3 1B.i.c5 i.d4
19.i.d4 .!:theB 20.i.e5 21..l:te4
22 . .l:lc1 liJxd5 23J:tc5+-.)
10.i.xf3. Black has tried to hold
that position in numerous ways:
He fails to avoid trouble with:
10 ... liJxd4 (It is hardly any bet-
ter for Black to try: 10 ...
11.d5, Kienhorst - van Bommel,
corr. 1997, 1l ... exd512.cxd5liJe5
13J:te1liJxf3+ because
White enjoys a great lead in de-
velopment, while the position is
quite open, or 10 ... 0-0-0 11.liJb5
Matulovic - Kne-
zevic, Bajmok 1975. White is at-
tacking, while Black has no
counterplay whatsoever. Later in
the game there followed: 12 ... a6
13.liJa7+ liJxc615.
i.e3 :'eB 16.:'fd1liJdB 17 .d5
1B.c5+- and White won.) 11.
i.xb7 ':d8 (1l ... l::i.b8, Ciocaltea-
Knezevic, Vrnjacka Banja 1975,
c6 :'d8 14.
i.a6) 12. c6 13.i.e3
e5 15.lUe1 f6 16.J::!.ad1
17.i.xd4 llxd4 De
Firmian - Shamkovich, USA
1994. Black has failed to exploit
the unfavourable placement of
the bishop on b7 and White re-
mained with an extra pawn in a
better position;
Following 10 ...
Black is faced with numerous
problems too: 11 ... (He
loses after: 11... 12.i.e3
13.b4liJxb4 14.i.d2. In the game
Pulkkinen - Pitkaenen, corr.
1974, Black came under a dan-
gerous attack after: 11 ...
a613 . .!:td1 b5
15.cxb5 liJxd4 16. liJd5 17.
i.xd5 exd5 1B.l:te1+ and here he
resigned, because of the line: lB ...
i.e7 19.i.g5 f6 20.i.xf6 gxf6 21.
12 . .!:txd1 .!:tc8 13.ii.f4 e5
14.ii.xe5! liJxe5 15.ii.xb7 liJxc4
(15 .. J:tb8?? 16.liJxc7# Cornacchi-
ni - Zillmer, IECC 1998) 16J:rac1
(this move is much stronger than
the immediate win of the ex-
change: 16.ii.xc8ltJxc8 17.liJxc7+
16 ... liJb617.ltJxc7+
.l:txc7 18.l:txc7+- and Black will
still lose his a7-pawn, while he
completes his development. His
position is terribly bad, indeed.
8.exd6 cxd6 9.d5
9 ... exd5
Following 9 ... ii.xf3 10 . ..txf3,
215
Chapter 13
Black loses a pawn after: 10 ...
lLle5 1l.dxe6lLlxf3+ 12.thf3 fxe6
13. 'l;'txb7 Serpik - Massie, Alex-
andria 1996. Ie should play in-
stead 10 ... exd5 i.e7 (In
case of 1l ... lLlxd5, it is good for
White to capture with the queen,
as well as the possibility: 12.cxd5
lLle513.f4lLlg614.'l;'td4; 13 ... lLld7
14J:te1+ i.e715.'l;'te2 and Black
still cannot castle.) 12.lLlc3 0-0
13.i.f4:;. Black's pawn-structure
is inferior and in case he tries to
play actively with: i.e7-f6, White
can maintain his material advan-
tage with: 13 ... 'l;'td7 (It is quite
similar after: 13 ... i.f6 14.i.xd6
lLlxd5 15.'l;'txd5 l:te8 16.lLlb5 .l:.e2
17.lLlc7 .l:.c8 18 . .l:.fe1! .l:.xe1+.
Black cannot capture on b2, be-
cause of the check on the e8-
square. 19J:txe1 'l;'td7 20.i.g3+-
Johansson - Freeman, Lugano
1968.) 14 . .l:.c1 i.f6 15.i.xd6 .l:.fd8
16.c5lLlxd5 17. 'l;'txd5 b6 Svensson
- Tagnon, Haifa 1976 and it is
quite sufficient for White to play
just one precise move -18.'l;'te4
in order to preserve his extra
pawn.
10.cxd5 i.xf3
This is practically Black's
only move.
Re loses a piece after: 10 ...
lLlb4? 11.'l;'te1+- Shirazi - Kanai,
Haifa 1976.
It is a disaster for Black to try:
10 ... lLlb811.'l;'td4i.d712 . .l:.e1 and
he can already resign, because of
the huge material losses, Posch
- Karapetian, Vienna 1999.
It is also too bad for Black to
216
play: 10 ... lLle7 11.lLlc3 lLlg6
(11. .. g6?? Makra -
Vodila, Miskolc 1998) 12.'l;'td4.
White's attack against the g7-
square prevents Black from de-
veloping his bishop on g7 and
it is quite unclear now Black
should proceed further: 12 ... i.d7
13 . .l:.e1 'l;'tf6 14.i.a6+ i.e7 15.
gxf6 16.i.xb7+- and White
won easily with an extra pawn,
J.Horvath - Derera, Zalakaros
1993.
1l.gxf3!?
It is now essential for White
to be able to check on the b5-
square, just in case, and addi-
tionally the doubled pawns
would help him restrict Black's
knights.
1l . lLle5 12.i.b5+ lLlbd7
Following 12 ... lLled7, White
plays 13.'l;'td4 and again Black
cannot develop his dark squared
bishop, because of the loss of the
g7 -pawn, so he should play:
13 ... 'l;'tf614 . .l:.e1+.
Black is now faced with a
rather unpleasant choice: 14 ...
i.e7 15.'l;'txf6 gxf6, leaves his
bishop on e7 quite passive, due
to the doubled pawns, while
4.ti:J{3 j.g4 5.i.e2lbc6 6.0-0 e6 7.c4
14 ... enables White to re- iLh4 24.h3 lbffi 25.
treat his queen and to playa lad1 lbh5 26Jld4 iLffi 27 . .ti.b4;t,
middle game with a black king and Black has no active play,
stranded on the dB-square. He meanwhile his weakness on b6
maintains a huge advantage in is practically defenseless, Kroe-
both lines: ger - Junge, Germany 1995.) 16.
14 ... iLe7 15. gxf6 16.lbc3 lbc3 iLe7 17.iLe3 .l:i.gB 1B.iLd4
a6 (16 ... f51B.iLd3 iLffi 19.1be4 g4, Fiorito - Bul-
19.iLxf5 ..txc3 20.bxc3 lbxd5 courf, Villa Martelli 1996 and
21.iLa3t (Y.Bagirov) and White here White should have simply
hasapairofactivebishopsinan captured the pawn, without
open position. He has the edge chasing ghosts: 20.fxg4 and
despite the numerous mutual Black cannot play: 20 ... f5 (20 ...
weaknesses.) 17 . ..te2 lbe5 (In 21.3) 21.lbg3 .l:i.xg4 22 . .l:.xe7
case of the immediate 17 ... f5, .l:txg3+ (22 ... 23.'iti'xg4+--) 23.
White can play He pre- fxg3 24.'iti'c2+--. On move 15
pares the move iLe2-d3, which Black can also try: 15 ... 'iti'f5. This
would not be good immediately, is an immediate attempt to
due to lbd7-e5. 1B ... lbffi 19 . ..td3 create some counterplay with
lbfxd5 20.iLxf5;t and White's lbd7-e5. 16.lbc3lbe5 17.f4 'iti'g4+
bishops are quite effective in an lB. 'iti'xg4 lbxg4 19.1ba4. White
open position.) 1B.f4 l:1gB+ 19.'Jilfl makes use of the weakness of
lbg4 20 . ..td3! f5 (following 20... Black's Bthrank. 19 ... 20.iLd2
lbxh2+ Black's knight (This move is probably even
might get trapped on the king- stronger than 20.lbxb6 'ittxb6
side, particularly in case White 21.iLeB (I.Boleslavsky) 21...lbe5
manages to play 2-3) 21...txf5 22.fxe5 .l:i.xeB;!;) 20 ... lbxa4 21.
lbxh2+ 23 . ..txh7 l:.hB ..txa4 lbf6 22.':'acl
24J:th1 lbf6 25 . ..te4 and White with the idea to bring the second
remained with an extra pawn, rook into the attack against the
although doubled, in the game black king - .l:i.e3(e4)-b3(b4) and
Vogt - Uddenfeldt, Skopje 1972; Black is practically helpless.) 22.
14 ... g5. This is iLa5+ b6 23.iLc3 (23.ltac1+
an attempt by Black to organize 24.iLc61lcB 25.iLc3;!;.) 23 ... lbxd5
some counterplay on the king- 24 . .l:i.ac1 25.iLc6+ 26.
side. (He does not weaken his iLxg7 + 27.iLxhB White has
position so much after: 15 ... .ie7 the material advantage, while
16.lbc3 l::tcB 17.iLe3 'iti'f5 lB. Black fails to trap the bishop on
lbe5. This is practically the only h8: 27 ... ffi 28.l::tcd1 29J:te4
way for Black to create some iLh6 30.l::tc4+ 31.b3+-.
counterplay: 19.f4 'iti'g4+ 20.'iti'xg4 13J:tel iLe7 14.f4 tLJg6 15.f5
lbxg4 21.iLxb6+ axb6 22.lba4 lbge5 16.lbc3 a6
217
Chapter 13
16 ... ..th4 17 . ..txd7+ 'it>xd7 18.
l:te4.
16 .. .'it>d8 17.f4 f5 18 . ..td3 ..tf6
19 . ..txf5 ..txc3 20.bxc3 lDxd5
2l...ta31' (V.Bagirov) and there
remain plenty of weaknesses for
both sides, but White maintains
his advantage thanks to his
bishop pair in an open position.
17 . ..txd7+ lDxd7
17 ... thd7 18.f4 lDc4 19.

18 ..tg5 f6
It is also bad for Black to play:
18 ... lDf6 19 . ..txf6 gxf6
and he cannot castle 20 ... 0-0,
because of: 21..l:te3 'it>h8 22.l:th3
.l::i.g8 23Jhh7+-.

(diagram)
20 . .td2 Oll- Kaunas, Clichy
1991.
White's advantage is quite
clear, because of the vulnerabil-
ity of Black's king and the lack
of coordination of his rooks. The
weakness of the e6-square is es-
sential too. The moment White
managed to bring his knight to
that square, Black's position be-
came just terrible: 19. 'it>f8
20 . ..td2 "fttf7 22.1:.e3
'it>g8 23.lDe2 lDe5 24.lDf4 g5 25 .
1:.g3 h5 26 . ..tc3 h4 27.1:.g2 'it>h7
28.lDe6 29.f4 g4 30.fxe5+--
and White wins a piece, since it
is too bad for Black to play: 30 ...
gxh3 3Ulg7+ 'it>h6 32 . ..td2+
33 . ..txg5+ fxg5 34Jhe7+-.
Conclusion
We have analyzed in this chapter some seldom played fifth moves
for Black, as well as S ... lDc6.
Still, basically these rarely played moves are not so satisfactory
for Black - he does not develop his pieces and White often manages,
by playing 6.h3, to force Black's bishop on g4 to get either exchanged
for White's knight on {3, or to retreat (but then after i..g4-hS, White
has the positionally cramping sacrifice eS-e6 at his disposal). He
maintains a long-lasting initiative in both cases.
Concerning the move S ... ltJc6 - it is not bad at all, since the knight
attacks the eS-pawn. On the other hand, Black's knight on c6 can be
easily attacked by White with the bishop (line a), or by the d-pawn
(line c), and that helps him preserve his edge. He should often be
prepared to press his advantage home in a slightly better endgame.
218
Chapter 14 l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 tLJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ttJf3
i.g4 5.i..e2 c6
This system was invented by
S.Flohr - one of the greatest
players of the 30ies of the 20
th
century. We have already seen
that it is unfavourable for Black,
in the Alekhine Defence, to cap-
ture on f3 with the bishop, be-
cause the white bishop on f3 at-
tacks the b7-pawn and thus
White wins important tempi.
Black defends the long diagonal
in advance with his last move
and subsequently he plans to
capture on f3 (sometimes even
voluntarily, for example in an-
swer to 6.0-0). Later he ex-
changes pawns on e5, he plays
tDb8-d7 and eventually
and tDd5-e7 -g6 - altogether he
attacks White's e5-pawn with all
available means. It is a bit un-
comfortable for White to defend
it successfully and his two bishop
advantage turns out to be imma-
terial in similar positions.
White has several ways to
counter that plan and two of
them are the most principled. At
first - the move 6.tDg5, with the
idea to preserve the knight in the
arising pawn-structure in order
to try to bring it later to the d6-
square. Secondly, it is the Le-
venfish variation, which we rec-
ommend - 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2, af-
ter which Black fails to reach the
desired pawn-structure, since
White will still have a knight left
on the f3-square and he would
capture on e5 with it, if neces-
sary.
6.c4 tDb6
The immediate exchange on
f3 is considered to be bad for
Black 6 ... i.xf3. After 7.i.xf3lbb6
(7 ... lbc7 presents White with an
additional tempo, because of the
attack against the b7-pawn and
that is quite undesirable for
Black: 9.exd6 exd6
10.0-0 i.e7 11.l:!el and Black
fails to castle, Ghinda - Mozes,
Eforie 1987. It is more stubborn
219
Chapter 14
for Black to defend with: 8 ... b6
9 . .Jte3, but the weakening of the
long diagonal might become a
telling factor in the future.)
8. Black now fails to accom-
plish the desired exchange on e5
and White's pressure on the
queenside is considerable: 8 ...
lLl8d7 (it is even worse for Black
to play here: 8 ... dxe5 9.c5 lLld5
lLld7 Fleck-
Haenisch, Germany 1985) 9.exd6
exd6 10.0-0 J.e7 1l.:td1 0-0 12.
J.f4 and the black knight on b6
is totally misplaced, Bielczyk -
Zauner, Werfen 1989.
6 ... lLlc77.exd6
It deserves attention now for
Black to try the seldom played
move 7 ... After 8.0-0 lLld7
9.lLlc3 lLlill 10 . .Jte3 e6 1l.h3 J.h5,
Mulet - Lukasiewicz, Bielsko-
Biala 1991, White maintains his
advantage with: 12.lLle5 J.xe2
13.lLlxe2 J.e7 14 . .Jtf4;t. It is too
dangerous for Black to play:
8 ... g6 9.c5!? This move forces
Black to worsen the placement
of his queen and it also prepares
(It is too tentative for
White to play 9.ttJbd2 .Jtg7 10.
l:te1 0-0 1l.h3 .Jtxf3 12.lLlxf3 ttJd7
220
13.J.e3;t Buckley - Crouch, Mon-
mouth 2002; 9.lLle5 .Jtxe2 10.
and now not: 10 ... lLle6
1l.d5;t cxd5?! 12.cxd5
13.:td1 +-, but instead: 10 ... .Jtg7
1l.:d1 c5 12.J.f4 cxd4oo) 9 ...
10. (10 ... J.xf3 ll.J.xf3
ttJb5 12.J.e3 t.
White is clearly ahead in devel-
opment and he has a dangerous
initiative. There might follow:
11...J.g7 (1l ... lLld5 12.lLlc3 J.e6
13.J.c4) 12.J.c4 (12.lLlg5 J.e6
13.J.g4!?t) 12 ... J.e6 (12 ... 0-0
13.:txe7+-; 12 ... e6 13.lLle5)
13.J.g5t.
It is more popular for Black
to play here 7 ... exd6 and that
leads to a position similar to
the Indian Defence. 8.0-0 J.e7 9.
lLlc3 0-0 (9 ... lLld7 10.h3 J.h5 1l.
:le1 0-0 12.d5! c5 13.J.f4 a6 14.
a4;t, but Black's possible counter-
play is severely restricted - it is
difficult for him to prepare b7-
b5, as well as to deploy his bishop
on e7 to the long a1-h-B diagonal,
Campora - Paulsen, Dortmund
1981) 10.h3
d5! c5 (12 ... lLlba6 13.J.e3) 13.
J.f4 A.Rodriguez - D.Cramling,
Biel 1988. Black's knights are
misplaced and his d6-pawn is
very weak. White exerts a pow-
erful pressure against the queen-
side of the opponent and that
hampers the coordination of
Black's rooks; the queen on c8 is
out of action too. All that, in ad-
dition to the extra space, makes
White's position clearly prefer-
able.
4.CiJ{3 !il..g4 5.iLe2 c6 6.c4 CiJb6 7.CiJbd2 CiJ8d7 8.0-0
7.CiJbd2
This move is based on the
idea to sacrifice the d4-pawn in
case of 7 ... dxe5 8.CiJxe5 and it is
very dangerous for Black to ac-
cept that sacrifice as we are go-
ing to see quite soon.
Black's main lines in this
position are - a) 7 .. CiJ8d7 and b)
7 ... dxe5.
He has also tried here plenty
of other moves too. White pre-
serves his space advantage in all
lines. His basic strategy is to for-
tify his centre:
7 ... !il..xf3. This move does not
make much of a sense; there will
remain a white knight on f3 any-
way, good enough for anything.
8.CiJxf3 dxe5 9.CiJxe5 CiJ8d7 10.CiJf3
e6 11.0-0 !il..e7 12.!il..f4;t; and
White maintains a stable space
advantage, Torres Sanchez -
Uris Escolano, Mislata 1997;
7 ... g6. We have had enough
reasons to be convinced by now
that the combination of the
moves g7 -g6 and !il..c8-g4 in the
Alekhine Defence is unfavour-
able for Black as a rule. In the
game Reichmann - Rumpl, Fin-
ken stein 1994, White played
8.exd6 exd6 9.CiJe4 iLxf3 10.!il..xf3
d5 1l.cxd5 !il..b4+ 12.CiJc3 CiJxd5
13.0-0 CiJxc3 and here the easi-
est way for him to maintain his
advantage would be the move
14 .. It is even more pur-
poseful for White to play: 8.CiJg5,
for example: 8 ... !il..xe2
dxe5 10.dxe5 h6 11.CiJf3 and
White's advantage is overwhelm-
ing in connection with the threat
e5-e6;
7 ... d5 8.c5 CiJc8 9.h3 !il..xf3
10.CiJxf3 e6 11.0-0 b6 12.!il..g5
(This move is with the idea to
support the c5-pawn with b2-b4,
while in case of a7-a5 - White
can play a2-a3. It is however not
so advantageous for White to
exchange the knights, because of
his extra space. He should not be
afraid that Black might try to
undermine his pawn-chain: 12.
b4 a5 13.cxb6 14.bxa5
15.!il..d2 "f1ta7 !il..e7
17.a41', or 15 ... !il..b4 16.!il..xb4
"f1txb4 17 . .l:tb1 "f1ta5 18."f1tc21' and
White has the initiative and a
better piece-placement in both
cases. Meanwhile, it is even sim-
pler for White, instead of castling
on move 11, to play 11.!il..e3;t;, so
that he should not worry about
the possibility of his centre be-
ing undermined.) 12 .. !il..e7 13.
iLxe7 CiJxe7 14.b4 a5 15.a3;t; and
White preserves plenty of extra
space, Siched - Kertesz, Ger-
many 1992;
7 ... 8.0-0 CiJ8d7. Black
forces his opponent to capture on
d6, but that exchange is quite
221
Chapter 14
favourable for White under
the circumstances. 9.exd6 exd6
10.CtJgS .Jtxe2 .Jte7 12.
14el. Now, in order for Black to
castle, he should first protect
his bishop with CtJb6-cB and
that is unfavourable for him:
12 ... CtJf6 13.CtJf1;!; 14.iLd2
CtJcB lS.CtJg3 0-0 16. CtJb6
17.a4 (17.CtJf5!?;!;) 17 ... I1aeB1B.aS
CtJcB 19.a6 iLdB (19 ... b6 20.dS)
20.axb7 lhe1+ 21Jhe1 t)[xb7
22.b3;!; and Black remains with
plenty of weaknesses in a passive
position, Filipovic - Baldauf,
Zuerich 19BB. White could have
also preserved his knight on the
d2-square with the idea to deploy
it later on e4: 13.b3CtJc8 14.CtJde4
with the following eventual de-
velopments: 14 ... 0-0 (14 ... CtJxe4
h6 16.CtJf3 0-0
'iti>hB 18.iLf4) lS.CtJxffi+ iLxffi 16.
g6 hS 18.iLe3 CtJe7
19.CtJe4 iLg7 20 . .JtgS .Jtxd4 2l.
l:Iadl CtJf5 22.iLf6 cS (22 ... iLe5
23.g4+-) 23.g4!. Black lags in
development considerably in
both lines, mostly because of the
unfortunate placement of his
knight on the cB-square;
7 ... CtJa6. This move is with a
purposeful idea - it can be placed
on c5, or to b4, after the exchange
of pawns on e5. That means
White should not present his
opponent with such possibility.
B.O-O CtJd7 9.exd6 (Black's knight
is now deprived ofthe c5-square.)
9 ... exd6 10 . .l:.el;!; and White ob-
tained a small, but long-lasting
advantage in the game Nunn-
222
Kovacevic, Thessaloniki 19B4.
The game continued: 10 ... iLe7
ll.d5 cS (in case of ll ... cxd5, be-
sides the natural capture of the
d5-pawn, White has the danger-
ous additional resource: 12.CtJd4
iLxe2 13. with
threats against the g7 -square
and along the e-file) 12.CtJg5
0-0 13.iLxg4 iLxg5 14.iLxd7
15.CtJe4 iLxc1 16.
I1ad8 17 . .l:!.e3 f6 (17 ... 18.
L1l:.ae1) CtJc7 19.
l:.ae1 I1deB 20.h4;!; and White is
again clearly better, at least be-
cause of the difference of the
power of the knights.
Black cannot equalize by ex-
changing on e5 either: B ... dxe5
9.CtJxe5 iLf5 (it is too bad for
Black to capture the pawn: 9 ...
iLxe2 ll.CtJdf3
12.CtJg5 f6 g6 14.
CtJxg6 hxg6 15. t)[xg6+ 'iti>d7 16.
:d1+) 10.CtJb3;!; e6?, Siepelt -
Matthey, Germany 1993, H.cS
CtJd7 12.iLxa6 bxa6 13.CtJxc6.
a) 7 ... CtJ8d7 8.0-0
8 ... dxe5
It is worse for Black to ex-
change his bishop for the knight
4.11':43 i..g4 5.iLe2 c6 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2 tD8d7 8.0-0
immediately - 8 ... iLxf3 9.tDxf3
dxe5 10.dxe5 and now:
10 ... tDc5 - this move is too
optimistic - Black begins maneu-
vering with the knight before the
completion of his development.
g612.tDg5 h613.tDe4 tDe6
14.iLe3 iLg7 15.':'ad1 16.f4
and White had a great advantage
in the game Hardicsay - Nie-
haus, Balatonbereny 1997, but
instead by playing: 13 ... tDxe4
e6 15.b3 tDd7, Black
could have solidified his position.
It is obviously simpler for White
to play: 12. b4 tDe6 13.a4 iLg7 (af-
ter 13 ... a5 14.bxa5 tDd7
Black fails to regain his pawn:
15 ... tDdc5 17.tDd4)
14.a5 tDd7 15.iLb2 16.
and White maintains his space
advantage;
10 ... e6 - Black's position re-
mains too bad after that natural
move as well. 11.iLd2 tDc5 (This
is just a loss of several tempi, but
Black's position is too passive
anyway: 11 ... 12.iLc3 0-0-0
13. h6 14.a4 'it'b8 15.a5 tDc8
16.b4. White attacks on the
queenside without any counter-
play by Black: 16 ... g5 17.h3 iLg7
tDe7 tDg6 20.iLfl
l:thg8 21.b5 c5 22.b6 axb6, Delga-
do - Podobnik, Dos Hermanas
2004 and here White's simplest
line was 23 Jla3, with the idea to
double the rooks along the a-file
and if necessary to play - iLd3-
e4. Black has nothing to counter
White's attack with. He has tried
also 12 ... h6 13.a4 a5 14J:tel.
Black cannot castle anywhere
due to his numerous weaknesses
on both sides of the board. His
counterplay against the e5-pawn
is completely fruitless: 14 ... g5
Ji.g7 16.':'adl. Black can-
not capture on e5: 16 ... tDxe5
17.tDxe5 iLxe5 18.iLxe5
19.iLh5 He has
great problems to solve too after:
16 ... tDc8 17.tDd4 0-0
and White's attack is very pow-
erful, because of the threat to
capture on 7, Altshuler - Kopy-
lov, corr. 1970.) iLe713.b4
tDcd7 14.t'fe4 The game
Grischuk - Szmetan, Internet
2000, continued 15.iLc3 tDa4
16.iLd20-0 17.iLdl tDab6 18.iLc2
g6 19.h4 ':'fd8 20.h5 tDfB (it is
better for Black to play here 20 ...
tDxe5 21.tDxe5 ':'xd2 22.hxg6 f5
23.gxh7+ 'it'xh7 iLxb4co)
21.':'ad1 ':'d7 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.g3
':'ad8 24.'it'g2 a6 25.11h1 f5 26.
exf6 iLxf6 27.iLf4+-- 28 . .l:txd7
:xd7 29.ttJe5 .l::td8 30.tDxg6 i:td4
31.tDe7+. Black's additional pos-
sibility on move 20 is just an epi-
sode. Meanwhile, White could
have avoided that maneuvering
with the bishop left and right:
15.a4 0-0 (I5 ... a5 16.bxa5 tDc8
17.l:tabl) 16.a5 tDc8 17.iLd3
and Black has no counterplay
against White's attack, which is
running smoothly.
9.tDxe5
(diagram)
9 4:Jxe5
Black can temporarily refrain
from capturing on e5 and af-
223
Chapter 14
ter: 9 ... i.xe2 10.the2 e6, there
might arise a position, which re-
sembles the classical variation of
the Karo - Cann Defence (1.e4
c6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 dxe4 4.lbxe4
i.f5), except that White has al-
ready castled short. Black has
developed his bishop outside of
the pawn-chain; he has traded it
and he is preparing c6-c5. Still,
White's chances are superior -
the knight on e5 is excellent, con-
trary to Black's knight on b6.
White controls the centre and
Black's move c6-c5 is not on the
agenda yet. White preserves a
slight, but stable edge. 11.lbdf3.
(In case of 11J:tdl with the idea
to place the knight to a more ac-
tive square - to e4, and not on f3
- Black might play 11...lbxe5
12.dxe5 It deserves some
attention for White to try 11.
lbxd7. Black would like to be able
to capture with the knight 11 ...
lbxd7, but that is bad, because
of 12.d5t. Ie should better play
11.. .. 12.lbf3 i.e7
illbe5.) 11...i.e7 12.i.f4 (this
move prevents the development
of the black queen to c7 and
cramps Black's position even
more) 12 ... 0-0 13.l:tadl lbxe5
224
14.dxe5 15.lbg5 J:tadB 16.
(It is quite advisable for
White to try 16.ttJe4!?;t, in order
to create the threat lbe4-d6, and
at some moment even
ili.h6, with a slight advantage)
16 ... i.xg5 (It is safer for Black to
play: 16 ... g6!? ':'xdl
IB.l:txdl.l:tdB?) 17.i.xg5 l:txdllB.
l:txdl h6 19.i.h4 (19.i.f6 gxf6
20.exf6 22.
19 ... g5 20.i.g3 l:tdB 21.l';ld6
(White should better play a
middle game and not an end-
game, therefore it deserves at-
tention for him to play: 21.l:tel
l:td2 22.h4 l:txb2 23.hxg5 hxg5
24. t and the weakening of
Black's king might become a tell-
ing factor in the future, for ex-
ample: 24 ... 25.i.h4 f5 26.
exf6 27 .l:.xe6 2B.l:tg6+
l:td2
31. 29 ... gxh4 30.
21...lbcB and in the
game Joachim - Bente, Ger-
manyl993, Black managed to
equalize, since he could counter
22.l:td3 with 22 ... lbe7 23.h4lbf5oo.
lO.dxe5
lO ... i.f5
This move is obviously the
4.tDf3 i.g4 5 . .i.e2 c6 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2 tD8d7 8.0-0
best for Black; his bishop is well
placed and quite active on that
square.
10 ... .i.e6 g6 12.tDf3
.i.g7. In the game N ijboer -
Landenbergue, Luzern 19B9,
White followed with 13.tDg5 and
Black had to play not so pas-
sively like: 13 ... 14.f4 0-0
15 . .i.e3 with a great advantage
for White, but more actively:
13 ... 14.CDxe6 fxe6
(15.a4 15. 16.
Si.g4.l:r.d8 17 l:td6) 15 ...
16 . .l:r.ab1 0-0 17 . .l:f.fe1 with
some counter chances. Therefore
it is better for White to play:
0-0 14Jiac1 .ltg4 15.
e6 16.tDg5 (White needs that
knight for the threat to occupy
the d6-square.) 16 ... 17.
tDd7 1B.tDf3 (White should
have postponed that retreat - it
was wiser for him to try: 1B.lIfd1
19.1Id6;!::, occupying the out-
post on the open file.) 1B ...
20.c5 (Black
should have grabbed the pawn,
according to the principle "it is
better to suffer for a reason, af-
ter all ... ": 20 ... 2 1. J:.fd 1 tDbB
22.lIb1 23Jhb7 CDa6oo)
21JHe1 b6 22.cxb6 tDxb6 23.
and Black remained with
numerous weaknesses to worry
about in the game, Moutousis -
Landenbergue, Haifa 19B9.
10 ... e6 12.tDf3
(It seems more attractive for
White to place his knight to an
active position - 12.tDe4, but
Black would counter that with:
12 ... Auer - Gebhardt, Porz
1990 and White might end up
with no compensation for the
pawn whatsoever.) 12 ... .lte7 13.
l:i.d1 (in case of 13 ... tDd7,
Fiorito - Szmetan, Villa Martelli
1997, it is better for White to play
14 . .l:Id4;!:: and after 14 ... we
reach a position that we will
analyze sometime later, in the
line 13 ... 14Jid4 tDd7) 14.
l:i.d4 0-0 (Black could have post-
poned castling for a while: 14 ...
tDd7 15.lig4 g616 . .lth6;!::. White's
rook on the g4-square seems a bit
awkward, while Black's king is
in the centre, but it is quite func-
tional on the 4th rank. In case of
16 ... 0-0-0, it can attack the fl-
pawn with 17 . .l:i.f4 and after the
forced line: 17 ... f6 1B.exf6
19Jie4CDc5 20.1le3;!:: Black is left
with a long-term weakness on
the e6-square to worry about.
His king cannot remain in the
centre forever, after all. In the
game Mitrovic - L.Popov, Vrnja-
cka Banja 1996, there followed
16 ... a5 17Jlb1 tDc5 1B.11f4 1:.dB
19.h4 tDd3. Black's activity is
quite harmless for White. 20.l:i.d4
l:lxd4 21.tDxd4 tDc5 22.tDf3
and here, instead of the quite
unfortunate operation by White:
23 . .i.g7 .l:r.gB 24. 25.
CDd3 l:i.dB 27 . .i.h6
2B.lifl tDxf2
he had better continue with: 23.
J:.d1+!? 24.tDg5 and attack
easily Black's weaknesses.)
15.l:tg4 l:tfdB 16 . .lth6. White's
threats on the kingside are quite
225
Chapter 14
dangerous at least because ofthe
fact that Black's knight on b6
does not participate in the de-
fence at alL 16 ...
1BJlel
g6 .l:i.xffi 22.Ct:Jd4+- and
White traps Black's queen, Da-
nailov - Huguet, Zaragoza 1994.
It was correct for Black to play
19 .. Jld7;1; and in case of20 . .i.xg7?
h5!=t, Black wins suddenly a
piece and he defends success-
fully. White could have played
stronger, though: 17. g6
(17 ... 1B . .i.xg7+-) 1B . .i.xffi
lhffi 19. f6 20.exf611xf6 2l.
l:tel and White maintains an
obvious positional advantage,
since Black's kingside is ex-
tremely vulnerable.

1l ... e6
11... 12.f4 e6 (In case of
12 ... 0-0-0, besides the calmer
lines, White can try: 13.c5!?, af-
ter which it is too bad for Black
to play: 13 ... ltJd7 e6
15.b4 Ct:Jxc5 <j;;xc7 17.
bxc5 .i.xc5+ 18.<;io>h1 .i.d4 19 . .i.a3
.i.xa1 20.i.d6, because White
remains with a material advan-
tage. Black should better play:
226
13 ... ltJd5 14.ltJc4 g6 15 . .i.d2;1; but
his position remains substan-
tially cramped, because he can-
not play e7-e6) 13.g4. This ag-
gressive move is quite playable.
(The calmer line: 13.Ct:Jf3 .i.c5+
14 . .i.e3 15.lladl 0-0, led to
a comfortable game for Black in
the game Walek - Vl.Sergeev,
Czech Republic 1999) 13 ... .i.g6
14.f5 and the position turns out
to be in favour of White: 14 ...
15. (15.fxg6 .i.c5+
16.<;tJhl hxg6-+; 15. .i.d6)
15 ... lldB 17.ltJxe4
lld4 1B.ltJg5!? (lB.Ct:Jd2 .i.b4)
1B ... exf5 (lB ... h6 19.fxg6 hxg5
20.gxf7+ <;tJd7 2l.b3) 19.9xf5 f6
(19 ... h6 20.fxg6 hxg5 21.gxf7+
<;tJd7 22.b3 .i.d6 23.h3) 20 . .i.e3
nd7 21.fxg6 fxg5 22 . .i.g4 ne7
23 . .i.xg5 .l:i.e5 24.llae1+-. White
refrains temporarily from cap-
turing the piece and he obtains
a great advantage in all varia-
tions.

In case Black does not castle
short, White's queen remains a
bit misplaced on that square,
therefore it deserves attention
for him to follow with: 12.ltJf3
13. ltJd7 14.b3 .i.c5
15. a5 16 . .i.b2 h6 17.a3 0-0
1B.b4 .i.e7 19.h3 (It is also pos-
sible for White to play here:
19.1tJd4!? .i.h7 20.ltJb3 a4 2l.ltJd4
l:tadB 22.f4;1;.) 19 ... ltJb6 20.
l:tfdB and now, instead of the
risky line: 21.ltJd4 .i.h7 22.c5ltJd5
23.f4 Redsven - Puranen,
Jyvaskyla 1993, White could
4.iDf3 i.g4 5.i..e2 c6 6.c4 iDb6 7.iDbd2 de B.tDe5
have tried the solid move 2l.
lIadlt with a minimal positional
edge.
12 ....
The move 12 ... t)/d4 presents
White with an additional attrac-
tive possibility: 13.iDb3
14.i..f3 t)/xc4 15.iDa5 t)/b5 (15 ...
t)/a6 16.iDxc61') 16.iDxb7 iDd5 17.
iDd6+ i..xd6 18. t)/xg7 i..xe5 19.
t)/xe51Ig8 0-0-0 2l.i..e3;l;:
Rosito - Malbran, Argentine
2003 and Black's king seems vul-
nerable and he has too many
weaknesses.
13.iDf3 0-0-0
White continued with 14.i..e3
and now, instead of 14 ... i..e7,
L.Bronstein - Malbran, Buenos
Aires 1990, 15. t)/xg7 h5 16.
lIadl, Black could have ob-
tained a powerful counterplay
with the move 14 ... iDa4!? attack-
ing the b2-pawn and White has
no ways to obtain any advantage
at all: 15.iDd4 (15.lIad1 lIxd1
16J:i.xd1 iDxb2<Xl) 15 ... i..g6 (15 ...
iDxb2 16.iDxffi exffi 17.a4) 16.f4
iDxb217.ffi (17.a3 i..c5=t=) 17 ... exf5
18.iDxffi iDd3<Xl.
The consequences of the move
14.a4!? are a bit unclear. The
following line is in favour of
White: 14 ... i..d3 15.i..xd3 1:txd3
16.t)/f4 ffi (16 ... 17.i..e3 h6
18.a5 iDc8 19.a6 b6 20. l:td7
2l.iDd41') 17.i.e3 i.e7 (17 ... a6
18.i..xb6 t)/xb6 19.iDg5) 18.a51',
but Black should better react by
deploying his knight to the c5-
square, since White has weak-
ened his queenside: 14 ... iDd7 15.
a5 iDc5 16.i..e3 .l:.g8 17.a6 iDxa6
18.i..xa7 c5<Xl.
White to continue with:
14.b3, thus eliminating the
possibility for Black to go to
the a4-square with his knight.
There might follow: 14 . iDd7
15.i..b2 iDe5 16.lIadl i..g6 (or
16 ... iDd3 17.i..a1 and Black is
forced to retreat with his knight)
17.lIxd8+ t)/xd8 18.lIdl;j;: White
maintains a slight advantage.
b) 7 . dxe5 8.iDxe5
8 .. i..f5
It is too dangerous for Black
to capture the pawn: 8 ... i..xe2
9. (instead it is bet-
ter for Black to play here 9 ... e6
10.0-0 i..e7 ll.iDdf3 iD8d7 Golo-
shchapov - Khachatrjan, Nizhnij
227
Chapter 14
Novgorod 1999 - we have al-
ready analyzed that position in
line a - see 7 ... lDBd7 B.O-O dxe5
9.lDxe5 i.xe2 10. t'txe2 e6 II.
lDdf3 i.e7) 10.lDdf3 t'tc5 (l0 ...
1l.lDg5 f6 12. t'th5+ g6 13.
lDxg6 hxg6 14. t'txg6+ 15.
lDf7 t'te6+ 16.i.e3 lth4 17 .ltd1 +-
Isupov - Klochko, Vladivostok
1995) 11.i.d2lD6d7 12.0-0 lDxe5
13.lDxe5 f6? (l3 ... lDa6 14.b4;\;)
14. t'tg4+- Vogt - Vukic, Zinno-
witz 1969.
It seems a bit awkward for
Black to play: B ... i.e6 9.lDe4 f6
10.lDc5 i.gB. In case of 1l.lDf3,
White's position is superior after
capturing on c4, as well as after
Black defends his b7-pawn with:
1l ... lDxc4 12.lDxb7 t'tb6 13.b3 (af-
ter 13.lDc5, Black would play
13 ... e5, Payen - Horn, Geneva
1990) 13 ... t'tb4+ 15.
i.xb2 t'txb7 16.l::i.cU Glek - For-
chert, Bad Wiessee 199B. White
has lost his castling rights, but
that is immaterial. He has man-
aged to develop his pieces, to
trade the dark squared bishops
and to exert a powerful pressure
against Black's weaknesses:
16 ... i.d5 17.i.c4 e6 1B.t'te2
19.h4 lDd7 20J:th3 i.d6 21.lDd2
l:.heB 22.lDe4 t'tc7 23. t'tc2 i.f4
24J:te1 25.i.a3 t'ta5
27.lDxd6 .l:!.e7 2B . .l:the3lDf8
29.lDe4 t!.dB 30.lDc5;\; and White's
advantage is only minimal, so
that line seems to be quite ac-
ceptable for Black;
11... t'tc7 12.b3 e5 13.CLle4
CLlBd7 14.dxe5 CLlxe5 15.0-0 i.f7
22B
16.i.b2 CLlxf3+ 17.i.xf3 i.e7
1B.c5. (otherwise Black would
gradually manage to equalize)
1B ... lDd5 (V. Bagirov recom-
mended to Black to prevent the
sacrifice in this position with the
move 1B ... lDcB, but then after, for
example 19 . .u.e1 0-0 20.t'tc2;\;
Black's knight on cB is obviously
misplaced, while White's better
piece-placement is quite evi-
dent.) 19.1Dd6+ i.xd6 20.cxd6
t'txd6 2I..u.e1+ 22. t'td41'.
White's initiative for the sacri-
ficed pawn is very powerful.
Black's king is in danger and he
cannot improve its position with-
out creating new weaknesses.
Presently, the success of Black's
defence hinges on his knight on
d5, which defends the squares
suitable for penetration. The
game continued with: 22 ... h5
23.a4 24.i.a3 t'tdB 25.i.c5 b6
(This move has been provoked by
White with the maneuver i.a3-
c5 and it undermines the stabil-
ity of the knight on d5.) 26.i.a3
l:i.cB 27.l:i.ad1 1:Ic7 2B.b4
29. t'td3 29 ... lDf4 30.
lDg6 3I.i.e4 (Black defence is
catastrophically weakened after
the retreat ofthe knight from the
d5-square.) 31...h4 32.i.cI. (It
deserves attention for White to
continue with 32.i.f5, for ex-
ample: 32 ... t'tb7? 33.t'tdB+
34JIe4! and White checkmates;
or 32 ... t'tbB and now it is quite
good for White to follow with:
i.xg6 34J::re7 IIb7 35.
36.lhb7 t'txb7 37JId4
4.tbf3 !iLg4 S . .YI..e2 c6 6.c4 tbb6 7.tbbd2 de 8.tDeS
'fftf7 38. 'ffth3 Jl.h5 39.lhh4 'it>g8
40.g4 4l.lIxh5 lhh5 42.
'ffte4+ 44.
36. 37.
38.Jl.b2 Jl.f7, as well
as with the less aggressive line
33.Jl.c1 and after the forced 33 ...
llb7 - 34. recapturing the
pawn and preserving the danger-
ous threats.) 32 ... c5. This move
loses. (It is more stubborn for
Black to defend with: 32 .. J:th5
34.lIxd8+
35.Jl.f4+-; 34 ... tbf8 35.Jl.f4 I;Id7
36.lIxd7 ltJxd7 37.Jl.xc6 tbe5
38.Jl.e4t.) 33.Jl.f5 34.Jl.f4+-
.l:tc6 35. c4 36. (36 ...
ltJf8 37.lId8+-) 37.lId7 lIe8 38.
l:txb7 l:txe4 39.Jl.xe4 and Black
resigned in the game Vogt -
V.Bagirov, Riga 1981.
9.tbdf3
9 . tb8d7
9 ... e6?!. This move turns out
to be a grave mistake, since
Black should not allow his oppo-
nent to play ttJf3-g5. 10.ttJg5!
iLb4+ 1l...t>f1.
Black now loses practically by
force after: 11...0-0 12.g4 iLg6
13.c5! ttJc8 (In case Black covers
the d-file with the move 13 ...
tb6d7 - White plays: 14.tbxg6
hxg6 15. 16.a3 tba6 and
here he has a choice how to win.
White preferred: 17.axb4
and he obtained a
decisive material advantage,
thanks to the threat Jl.cl-d2, in
the game, Nikolaidis - Stefa-
nopoulos, Panormo 1998.) 14.h4
f6 15.tbxg6 hxg6 16.Jl.c4! (16.
tbxe6 16 .. .fxg5 17.Jl.xe6 I;If7
18. 19.1:th2! gxh4 20.g5
and Black resigned in the game
A.Kovalev - Dreev, USSR 1986.
It is a bit more difficult for
White after: 11 ... Jl.g6 12.Jl.h5
(12.h4 ltJ8d7 13.tbxd7
14.h5 Jl.f5 15.g4 h6) 12 ... 0-0
(12 ... lIf8 13.c5 tb6d 7 14.tbc4
L\tbd6) 13.Jl.xg6 hxg6 14.h4 (This
move brings the rook into ac-
tion, because Black can defend
somehow against the attack with
only a queen and a knight:
14. ttJ8d 7 15. ttJf6 16.
iLe3 17.g4 14 ... tb8d7
(14 ... iLe7 15.'fftg4 tb8d7 16.ttJxg6
tbf6 17 .ltJxe7 + 'fftxe7 18.
15.tbxd7 ttJxd7 16.h5 L\Jl.e7
17.ttJh7.
It is much better for Black to
play 9 ... f6. White must be care-
ful now not to lose a pawn, so he
should play 10.c5, weakening
the d5-square, which becomes
an ideal outpost for the black
knight. Well, Black has also com-
promised his position with the
move f7-ffi. In answer to 10.c5,
he can either capture the knight,
or retreat with his knight to the
d5-square:
229
Chapter 14
10 ... fxe5 11.cxb6 axb6 (Evi-
dently, the following pawn-sacri-
fice is not quite correct; 11 ... e6
12.bxa7 ltJd7 13.dxe5 and Black
will obviously fail to regain both
pawns - on a7 and on e5 - with-
out paying too dear a price:
13 .. 14 . .Jtd2 .Jtb4 15.0-0
.Jtxd2 16.ltJxd2 ltJxe5 17.ltJc4
ltJxc4 1B . .Jtxc4 0-0 19. and
Black loses his e6-pawn, A.Ro-
driguez - G.Garcia, Bayamo
19B9.) 12.ltJxe5ltJd7 13 . .Jtf4ltJf6
14 . .Jtc4 ltJd5. Black's knight is
really powerful on this square,
but still his weaknesses along
the e-file are even more impor-
tant in this position. Now, in-
stead of the overly aggressive
line: 15.g4 .Jte6 16 . .Jtg3 b5 17 .
.Jtb3 g6 1B.h4.Jtg7 19. (19.h5
.Jtxe5 20 . .Jtxe5 19 ... ltJf4
20 . .Jtxf4 .Jtxb3 21.0-0 l:t.xa2 22.
l:txa2 .Jtxa2+ and Black was even
better in the game, Wohlfart -
Zimmermann, Germany 19B9,
White had to continue more pru-
dently with: 15.0-0 b5 16 . .Jtb3 g6
17. .Jtg7 1B . .Jth6 0-0 19.
l:tfel::!;, or 17 . .Jtg5 .Jtg7 1BJlel::!;
and that would have preserved
a slight advantage for him;
Or 10 ... ltJd5 11.ltJc4
230
And now:
11 ... .Jtg6 12.ltJh4 .Jtfl 13.ltJf5
'ific7 14 . .Jtg4 g6 15.ltJh6 (White
does not achieve anything sub-
stantial after: 15. 'ifie2 gxf5 16.
ltJd6+ 'ifixd6 17.cxd6 fxg4 1B.dxe7
.Jtxe7 19. 'ifixg4 ltJd7+) 15 ... .Jtxh6
16 . .Jtxh6 ltJd 7 17. 'ifie2 0-0-0
1B . .Jte6 .Jtxe6 19.'ifixe6 20 .
0-0-0 g5 21.g3 ltJfB 22 . .JtxfB
l:t.dxfB 23.h4 h6 24 . .l:.de1 'ificB 25.
and White had a slight
edge in the game, Siklosi - Wald-
mann, St Ingbert 19B9. It looks
like White had better castle on
move 14, i.e.: 14.0-0 g6 15.ltJh6
.Jtxh616 .
Black's king will be quite unsafe
on the queenside;
11...ltJa6 12.0-0 ltJac7 13.ltJh4
.Jte6 14.f4.Jtfl 15.l:t.e1 e6 16.f5 g6
17 . .Jtg4 Black's position is
solid enough, despite the fact
that it does not seem to be har-
monious at all. 1B.fxe6+ .Jtxe6
19 . .Jtxe6+ (19.l:t.xe6ltJxe6
l:t.bB 21..Jtd2 f5 22.ltJxf5 gxf5
23 . .Jtxf5 'ifif6+) 19 ... ltJxe6 20.ltJf3
(but not 20.'ifib3ltJxd4
22.'ifixaBltJf3!+, or
f5 22.ltJe5+ 23.ltJfl 'ifif6 24.
ltJxhB .Jtxc5 ltJc2+) 20 ...
21..Jtd211eB 22.b4 b5 23.cxb6
axb6 24. 'ifib3;!:; Kurass - Sergeev,
Kiev 19B6. Black's knight on d5
is quite solid, but his king looks
vulnerable. White can try here:
16.ltJf5 exf5 17 . .Jth5+ lB .
.Jtxfl g6 and now the pawn-break
19.94!?, for example: 19 ... fxg4
(19 ... 20.gxf5 gxf5 21.'ifih5
'ifid7 22 . .Jtd2t) 20.f5 gxf5 21.'ifid3
4J.iJf3 !il.g4 S.i..e2 c6 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2 de B.tDeS
22. 23.i..xd5
tDxd5 24.i..f4+ tDxf4 25.
26J:te6.
9 ... tDBd7 - this move is not so
ambitious. Black exchanges the
powerful white knight and he
does not create any weaknesses
yet.
10.0-0 tDxe5 1l.tDxe5 e6
It is also possible for Black to
try: 11...ttJd7. This defensive
stratagem is quite typical - the
powerful pieces of the opponent
must be exchanged. 12.i..f4 e6
13.i..f3 tDxe5 (13 ... i..e7 14.d5
tDxe5 15.i..xe5 f6 16.i..c3 cxd5
17.cxd5 e5 Otherwise - the posi-
tion gets opened. 1B.i..g4
19.i..xf5 14.i..xe5
f6 (White preserves his initiative
after: 14 ... f616.i..g3
0-0-0 17.d5; 16 ... i..e717.l::tad1 t
15.i..g3 i..d6 16.i..h5+ i..g6
i..xg3 1B.hxg3 19.d5
cxd5 20.cxd5 e5 21.i..g4
22. 0-0 i..f7 24.
lIad1, L.Bronstein - Malbran,
Buenos Aires 1993 and Black
will fail to regain his pawn, for
example: 24 ... I:tfdB 25.b3 i..xd5?
26.lIxd5+-.
12.i..g4 i.xg4
(diagram)
13. A.Sokolov - Zelcic,
Torcy 1991. The position has
been simplified a bit; neverthe-
less Black still has problems to
solve due to his lag in develop-
ment. As usual, White has a
space advantage. Later in the
game there followed: 13 .. tDd7
14.lId1 h5 (This move is too
risky, but Black cannot castle
kingside without creating some
additional weaknesses: 14 ... g6
15.i.g5 i.e7 16.i.h6 17.i.f4
i.d6 lB. tDxe5 19.dxe5 i..e7
20.i.g5 lIdB 21.i.xe7 22.
lId6;!;, and White has penetrated
the key d6-outpost.) i.d6
16.lId3 i.xe5 17.dxe5
18.lIg3 19.i.f4 20.I:t3
tDb6 21.lIc1 0-0-0 22.i.e3
(22 ... 23. l:!.xf7;!;) 23.h3
24.lIg3 25.I:txg7 l:thg8 26.3
27.1!xf7. Black's compen-
sation for the pawn is insuffi-
cient. After 27 ... l:!.g3, White had
better play 2B.ttc2 29.
i.xb6+-. Sometime earlier, in-
stead of attacking Black's pawns
along the third rank with the
rook, White could have tried:
1B.i.f4 0-0-0 (lB ... g5 19.i..d2)
19J:tad1 g5 20.i..d2 tDc5 21.i..b4
- and Black would have plenty
of weaknesses to worry about.
231
Chapter 14
Conclusion
Black's idea, in the Flohr variation that we havejust analyzed, is
to exchange his bishop for White's knight on f3 and to follow that
with capturing on e5 (d6xe5) and attack White's e5-pawn later in
the game. We recommend to you to counter that idea with Levenfish's
move 6.tiJbd2, after which it becomes senseless for Black to exchange
White's knight on f3 with the bishop, since White would capture with
the knight and not with the bishop. As a rule, Black usually ex-
changes on e5 and then White captures with his knight, so Black is
faced with a choice.
He can trade bishops on e2 and knights on e5, but then the d6-
square becomes terribly weak. This is in fact one of the essential
positional drawbacks of the Flohr variation.
Black can also exchange only on e2 and then avoid the trade on
e5, but his position remains too passive, nevertheless solid enough.
He can capture on e5 too and then retreat his bishop to the f5-
square, but that leads to a considerable space advantage for White.
Finally, Black can try 7 ... dxe5 B.tru:e5 iLe6, or B ... lLf5 9.tiJdf3 f6
and then he can exploit the d5-outpost for his pieces, but only at the
expense of weakening of his position.
We have recommended to you clear and straightforward ways for
White to maintain his opening advantage in all lines.
232
Chapter 15 l.e4 lbf6 2.e5 lbd5 3.d4 d6 4.lbf3
i.g4 5 . ..te2 e6
6.h3
Presently, it is considered
that the exchange on f3 is un-
favourable for Black at this mo-
ment, so it is obviously useful for
White to include the moves h3
and i.h5, because he not only has
an escape-square for his king,
but he has an additional resource
- g2-g4.
6 ... i.h5
The trade for Black 6 ... .Jtxf3
7.i.xf3, enables White to create
the threat c2-c4, followed by cap-
turing on b7 and it reduces
Black's possibilities consider-
ably:
Black loses material after:
7 ... i.e7? 8.c4 liJb6 9.i.xb7+- Tar-
res - Morato, Tordera 1996;
It is slightly better for him to
try instead: 7 ... liJd7. Now, White
does not achieve much with: 8.c4
liJ5b6 9.i.xb7 10.i.a6 dxe5co
Knuetter - Gerards, Cologne
1993. It is therefore simpler for
him to follow with: 8.exd6 and
Black loses a pawn in all varia-
tions: 8 ... i.xd6 (8 ... c6 9.c4 and c4-
c5; 8 ... cxd6 9.c4) 9.c4 i.b4+ 10.
Black has no way to exploit
that placement of White's king-
10 ... liJ5f6 1l.c5 c6 12.
7 ... dxe5? 8.c4 liJb6 (8 ... liJb4
9.i.xb7 liJ8c6 10.i.xa8 liJxd4
1l.i.e4+- Dominguez - Abreu,
Havana 2001) 9.i.xb7, White
has won the exchange and he
should only demonstrate accu-
rate technique in order to real-
ize his material advantage, for
example: 9 ... liJ8d7 10.i.xa8 i.b4,
Solomaha - S.Pavlov, Kiev 2005,
i.xd2+ 12.liJxd2
13.0-0 exd4 14. 11 ...
12.c5+- and White even
wins one more piece;
7 ... liJc6 8.c4 liJb6 9.exd6 cxd6
10.d5 exd5 (10 ... liJe5? 11.dxe6
fxe6, Kiernan - Ait Hamido,
Thessaloniki 1984. White pre-
serves a great advantage by play-
ing: 12.i.xb7 J:.b8 13.i.a6) 11.
233
Chapter 15
..txd5 ttJxd5 12. 'xd5 This
is an active counterattacking
move, but Black should have pos-
sibly left his queen on the d8-
square and played instead ..te7
and 0-0. That can hardly change
the evaluation of the position,
though: 13.0-0 iLe7 14 . .l:te1 0-0
15.ttJc3;l;;. White's positional edge
is stable and long-lasting - his
pawn-structure is superior and
he enjoys the d5-outpost for his
knight. Black's attempt to com-
plicate matters after: 15 ... ttJb4
ttJc2 17 . .l:e4 18 . .l:lb1
iLe5 20.c5+-left him
without any compensation for
the missing pawn, Agdestein -
Kopylov, Kiel 2000;
It is the best for Black to play
here: 7 ... c6 8.c4 ttJb6 9.
White has defended his c4-pawn
and he is already threatening to
capture on d6, so Black's re-
sponse is practically forced:
9 ... dxe5 (It is useless for Black
to play 9 .. since the threat
exd6 comes again on the agenda.)
10.c5 ttJd5 11.'xb7 ttJd7, Seid-
man - Levy, New York. White's
position is still preferable after:
12. exd4 13.iLg5;l;;. There
might follow: 13 .. ..l::f.c8 (Black
loses after 13 ... ..te7 14 . .txe7
r:Ji;xe7 15.iLxd5+-. In case of 13 ...
White should better con-
tinue with: 14.i.xd5 exd5 15.
iLxc516.,e4+ r:Ji;f8 17.0-0;l;;
and Black's position remains
clearly worse due to his lag in de-
velopment.) 14. exd5 15.
iLxd8. After capturing on d8,
234
White follows with b2-b4 and he
obtains two connected passed
pawns against Black's doubles d-
pawns. This is clearly quite
favourable for White in case of
calm developments, so we will
analyze the consequences of
Black's attempt to undermine
White's b-pawn with: 15 ... .l:!.xd8
(15 ... ttJe5 17.a3 ttJxf3
18.gxf3 iLe7 19.'it>e2 ':e8 20.
16.b4 ttJe5 17.a3 a5 18.
d3+ (18 ... ttJxf3 .l:!.b8
20.ttJd2 axb4 21.axb4 lhb4 22.
1:ta7; 18 ... :b8 19.iLxd5 axb4
20.axb4 .l:lxb4 21.1:ta8+ 22.
l1c1) ttJxf3+ 20.gxf3l1b8
21.ttJc3 axb4 22.axb4 lhb4 23.
.l:a7+-. It now has become obvi-
ous that the opening of the game
can only be favourable for White.
7.c4 ttJb6
8.exd6
Until the middle of the 90ies
of the last century, the line 8.
0-0 iLe7 9.ttJc3 0-0 10.iLe3 d5
n.c5 iLxf3 12.gxf3 ttJc8 used to
be considered as the best for
White. Later, in connection with
the new plan that we recommend
to you - this theoretical evalua-
tion has changed.
5.iLe2 e6 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 tDb6 B.ed cd 9.tDc3
8 ... cxd6 9.tDc3 iLe7
After 9 ... tDSd7 10.d5 and in
case of 10 ... exd5 (10 ... e5 l1.g4
iLg6 12.h4, leads by transposi-
tion to our main line - see 9 ...
iLe7.) White can continue, ignor-
ing the eventual loss of the c4-
pawn, with: 1l.tDxd5;t .txf3?!
(White remains with a stable
positional edge, in case Black
does not try anything extraordi-
nary, because of the vulnerabil-
ity of the d6-square.) 12 . .txf3
tDxc4?, but all that is bound to
end up in a disaster for Black:
13.0-0 tDce5 14.l:.el.te7 15.tDxe7
'fftxe7 16 . .txb7, since he loses
material, for example after: 16 ...
ItbS 17.iLc6 0-0 IS . .txd7 'fftxd7
19J:txe5+-.
lO.d5
This move has appeared rela-
tively recently and it has been
recommended by the leading
Moldavian theoretician A.Che-
banenko. It was tried (in its main
line - 10.d5 e5 1l.g4) for the first
time by Y.Bologan in his game
against S.Adgestein at the Olym-
piad in Erevan in 1996. White's
idea is somewhat non-standard
- he usually plays d4-d5 in this
pawn-structure only in case
Black's knight is already on the
c6-square, since that forces the
weakening of Black's pawn-
chain. He is thus forced to either
capture on d5 and he remains
with an isolated d6-pawn, other-
wise White would be able to cap-
ture on e6 and then both black
central pawns e6 and d6 become
vulnerable.
The way White is playing now
- Black has the option to con-
tinue with e6-e5, preserving
compact pawn-structure and
later he can hope to advance his
e and f-pawns. It is evident why
White had refrained to try that
until the middle of the 90ies. It
turns out however, that Black's
central pawns are going nowhere
and White can easily prevent f7-
f5 with the active move g2-g4 and
then he can occupy the important
e4-square. In general, this idea
leads to positions with a huge
space advantage for White and
a powerful initiative for him.
lO ... e5
White is obviously better
after: 10 ... exd5, Alavkin - Brat-
chenko, Russia 1997, l1.tDxd5
0-0 12.0-0;t and Black's attempt
to win a pawn fails after: 12 ...
.txf3 13 . .txf3 tDxc4, because of:
14.'fftc2 tDe515.i.e4 tDbc6 (15 ... g6
16.tDc7) 16.i.xh7+ 'it>hS 17.f4.
It deserves some attention for
Black to try: 10 ... 0-0 1l.dxe6
fxe6 12.tDd4 i.f7 13.0-0 tDc6 (or
13 ... tDSd7 14.iLe3 tDe5 15.b3;t)
14.i.e3 ~ h S 15.b3 d5 16.cxd5
235
Chapter 15
exd5. He has relatively lively
piece-play and it compensates
somehow the vulnerability of his
isolated pawn. ttJd7 lB.
ttJf5 (lB.nad1 planning to
continue with i.b4) 1B ... ltJf6.
This interesting idea is in the
spirit of the Tarrasch Defence.
The two bishop advantage is less
effective than usual in positions
with an isolated d5-pawn. (After
1B ... i.f6, White preserves a
slight advantage with: 19.':ad1
i.e6 20.ttJd4ltJxd4 21..txd4 ':c8
22 . .txf6 ltJxf6 23.i.f3 24.
l:tfe1 .tf7 25.l:te3t.) 19.1tJxe7
20.ltJb5 ltJe4 21. a6
22.ttJd4 23J1ac1 ttJe7 24.
White dominates on the
dark squares and he can attack
effectively Black's queenside, so
he is clearly better. Later, the
game Gongora - Nogueiras,
Holguin City 2002, followed
with: 24 ... l:taeB 25.:c71? ltJc6
26.ltJxc6 bxc6 (It de-
served some attention for White
to try the more prudent 27.
i.f31?;t.) 27 ... d4 2B.l:!.xc6 (2B.i.c1
i.d5iii) 2B ... 'i::'te5. White made a
mistake in that position; he re-
treated his bishop to c1 and re-
linquished the initiative. Mean-
while, he should have continued
with: 29.f4 (29 .. 30.i.c4
31.i.xfl 32.l::tdl) 30.
i.xd4 and Black cannot win the
exchange with: 30 ... ttJg3, because
of 31.i.d3ltJxfl 32 . .l:th61+-.
1l.g4
White must play that move;
otherwise Black would castle
236
and follow with fl-f5 and he will
have an active position in the
centre and on the kingside, while
his queenside would be solid
enough too. White should not be
deterred by the weakening of his
kingside by the move g2-g4. He
occupies space and he obtains
eventually the excellent e4-
square for his knight. White's
king is presently quite safe in the
centre and he should not be in a
hurry to castle. Concerning
Black - there is only one way for
him to obtain an active counter-
play and that is to deploy his
knight to the c5-square and to
follow that with e5-e4 and after
White plays b3-b4 - check with
the knight on the d3-square. In
case that plan fails, Black would
remain in a rather passive, but
relatively solid position and he
should try to prepare gradually
some actions on the queenside.
1l i.g6 12.h4
Black can play in the arising
position either el) 12 ... h5, or the
more prudent line - e2) 12 .. h6.
White remains with an extra
pawn in the variation: 12 ... e4
13.ltJg5 0-0 (13 ... i.xg5 14.i.xg5
5.iLe2 e6 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 tjjb6 8.ed cd 9.tjjc3
f6 15 . .ltf4 h6 16.h5 .lth7 17.tjjb5
tjjc8 18.c5!+-; 13 ... h6 14.tjjgxe4
0-0 15.g5 f5 16.gxf6 .ltxf6 17.
tjjxf6+ 18 . .lte3 Vozovic -
Le Thanh Tu, Oropesa del Mar
2001) 14.tjjgxe4 l:te8 15.
Messa - Corvi, Italia 1997.
cl) 12 ... h5 13.g5
This move enables White to
cramp his opponent even more
and additionally Black is left
with another weakness - the h5-
pawn.
13 ... tjj8d7
It seems quite dubious for
Black to play 13 ... 0-0, because of
the vulnerability of his h5-pawn
that we have already mentioned.
Later, in the game Guseinov -
Podobnik, Dos Hermanas 2004,
there followed: 14.tjjd2 tjj8d7
15 . .ltxh5 !:.c8 16.b3 tjjc5 17 . .ltxg6
fxg6 18.tjjde4 tjjxe4 19.tjjxe4
and Black had no compensation
for the pawn whatsoever.
13 ... tjj6d7 (That is the stan-
dard maneuver of the knight to
the c5-square, but still it is bet-
ter for him to play 13 ... tjj8d7, in
order to be able to attack the c4-
pawn later.) 14 . .lte3 ct:Ja6 15.a3
tjjac5 16.b4 tjje4 17.tjjxe4 iLxe4
18 . .ltd3 .ltxd3 19. t'txd3 g6 20.
tjjd2;!; (This is the natural and
powerful redeployment of the
knight.) 20 ... a5 21.'it>e2 0-0 22.
tjje4;!;. White enjoys a space ad-
vantage and he has a clear-cut
plan to attack on the queenside
connected with the pawn-ad-
vance c4-c5. It is amazing, but
Black cannot prevent that plan
even with the move: 22 ... b6 23.c5
bxc5 24.bxc5 and Black
cannot play 24 ... tjjxc5 25.iLxc5
dxc5 26.d6. In the game Pinto
Coelho - Merg Vaz, Dos Herma-
nas 2003, Black played 22 ... 'it>g7
23.c5 f5? and he lost promptly
after: 24.gxf6+ tjjxf6 25.tjjg5+-.
13 ... .ltf5 14.tjjd2 g6 15.tjjde4
t'tc8 16 . .lte3;!;. As it often happens
in cramped positions like that,
Black's pieces have no good
squares and they stand in each
other's way, Nevednichy - Lo-
viscek, Nova Gorica 2002.
Mter 13 ... tjja6 14 . .lte3 tjjb4
(14 .. ..!::tc8 15.b3 tjjc5, Vescovi -
Mayer, Bad Zwesten 2001, even
after 16.l:tg1 the game trans-
poses to the main line 13 ... tjj8d 7,
except that Black's knight has
come to the c5-square via a6 and
not the d7-square. The move
14 ... tjjb4 - is an attempt by
Black to exploit the placement of
the knight on a6.) 15J::tc1 e4
16.tjjd4 tjjd3+ 17.iLxd3 exd3 18.
b3;!; Delgado - Almeida, Holguin
2002, and Black's d3-pawn has
become a juicy target. Black can-
not compensate its weakness,
237
Chapter 15
because he has practically no
targets for a counterattack.
The game continued with: lB ...
'fIfd7 19.f4 (This is White's sim-
plest plan to press his advantage
home.) 19 ... 0-0 White
is threatening to follow with:
f4-f5. 20 ... .i.f5 21.ttJxf5 'fIfxf5
'fIfg4 23.f5! ttJd7 24.'iii'd2
4Je5 25. 'fIfxg4 hxg4 26 . .i.f4 f6
27 . .i.xe5 fxe5 2B.1:.cfl 1:.f7 29.
'it'xd3 a6 and Black re-
signed.
14.iL.e3
14 ... .l:tc8
14 ... This move is with
the idea to place the knight on
the c5-square, the queen on f5
and to create the threat to check
on d3. In the game Braun -
Duemmke, Weilburg 199B, there
followed: 15.b3 ttJc5 f5
0-0 1B.0-0-0 4Je4 19.
4Jxe4 White plans to
castle long, but this idea is not
impressive at all, since the king
would be quite vulnerable there.
He could and should have tried
instead: 16.4Jd2 17 . .i.xc5
dxc5 1B . .if3, followed by .i.e4.
Still, the best for White was to
counter 14 ... 'fIfcB with 15.'u'c1!
23B
(He could not capture on c4 any-
way, because of the pin of the
knight. White thus prevents the
accomplishment of Black's plan,
because now after 15 ... 4Jc5,
White follows with 16.b4 and
c4-c5 with a great advantage.
14 ... a6. The idea ofthat move
is to place the queen on c7, the
knight on c5 and then to rede-
ploy the other knight to the d7-
square with the object to prepare
in the future the undermining
pawn-move b7-b5. 15.b3
16 . .i.d3 0-0 17.4Je4 .i.xe4 (Natu-
rally, Black was not forced to give
his bishop, but he intends to
place his knight on c5, while the
line: 17 ... 4Jc5 1B.4Jxc5 dxc5 19 .
.i.xg6 fxg6 20.4Jd2 4JcB 21.
'iii'h7 22.4Je41' is not favourable
for him at all.) 1B . .i.xe4 g6 19.
4Jd2 4Jc5. The game continued
with: 20.'fIfc2 4Jxe4 (21.
4Jxe4? 4Jxd5) 21...ttJd7 22.0-0
4Jc5 (22 ... 'it'h7! f5?) 23.
.i.xc5!? 'fIfxc5 24.'iii'h1l:IaeB 25.f4
exf4 26.l:Iae1! 'fIfcB 'fIfg4?!
(o27 ... .i.dB!? 2B.4Je4 29.lhf4
l:te5oo) 2B. 'fIfh2? (It was correct for
White to follow here with: 2B.
'fIfxg4! hxg4 29.J:.e4! f5 30.gxf6
J:.xf6 l:.xf4 32.l:.xf4 .i.xh4
33.4Je4 .i.e7 34.'it'g2t) 2B ... .i.dB!=t
and Black's powerful counter-
play settled the outcome convinc-
ingly: 29.4Je4 f3
31.l:Ixg4 x:!.xe1+ 32J:tg1 .l:tfeB 33.
'fIff2 34. 'fIfg3 .i.b6
l:tBe4 36. 'fIfh3 x:!.g4! and White re-
signed, Vescovi - Leitao, Brazil
199B. Of course, White's play can
5.i..e2 e6 6.h3 i..h5 7.c4 tbb6 S.ed cd 9.tbc3
be easily improved - the fact it-
self that he had to capture on e4
with the queen and not with the
knight is quite indicative that he
did not play well.
It deserved attention, for ex-
ample, for White to have played:
20 . .i.c2!? At first, according to
the well-known principle, it is
better to avoid exchanging pieces
when you have a space advan-
tage. Secondly, the bishop pre-
vents reliably Black's move f7-f5
- his g6-pawn would be hope-
lessly weak after it. Finally,
Black has but one good square
for his two knights - the c5-
square, so one of the knights is
obviously ineffective. 20 .. J1ac8
(Black cannot change much with:
20 ... a5 21.11bU;.) 21..I:.c1 it.d8 22.
a5 23.'itfl tbbd7 24.'itg2;t
(this move is recommended by
A.Finkel) and White has the
advantage. He has restricted
Black's counterplay and he can
prepare the plan with b3-b4 at
leisure.
15.b3 tbc5 16.l':.gl tbbd7
17.b4;;l;
In case the black knight re-
treats, White would follow with
a2-a3 and then he would try to
deploy his knight to e4. Mter
17 ... tbe4, White, just like we
have mentioned in our notes to
Black's move 13 of the game
Pinto Coelho - Merg Vaz, Dos
Hermanas 2003, captures on e4,
exchanges the light squared
bishops and brings his knight
to e4 with a clear advantage.
The only way for Black to jus-
tify the idea tbc5 is to follow
with:
17 ... e4 18.tbd2 tbd3+ 19.'it>f1
Now, it is already too danger-
ous for White to capture the d3-
pawn, because of the possibility
tbd7-e5.
19 tbxb4 20.tbdxe4 0-0
W"'i

- .
Oi
.r::,.tLJ.
,
!fLJ
r::,. f#
n,
21..i.d4t
Black's kingside is under
threats now, since after the cap-
ture on h5 - White can con-
tinue with h4-h5-h6 quite dan-
gerously. 21. .. ,Ue8 22.a3 tba6
23.i..xh5 Il.xc4 24.i..e2
Black is forced to leave his rook
en-pris in order to preserve some
counter-threats. 25.h5 i..f5 26.
l:i.g3. It might have been better
for White to play here: 26.h6 i..f8
27,f3, because his threats on the
kingside are quite dangerous
(for example hxg7 and tbf6+) ,
while Black's counterplay is
presently non-existent. 26 ... i..f8
27.Ite3 ctJb6 28.i..xb6 lIcxe4
29.ctJxe4 iLxe4 and
Black's compensation for the
exchange is hardly sufficient.
Hamdouchi - Baburin, Saint
Vincent 2000.
239
Chapter 15
c2) 12 .. h6
13.i..d3 i..xd3
Black can also try another
idea here - to enable White to
trade bishops on g6, but to open
the f-file: 13 .. 14.i..xg6 fxg6.
He relies to obtain a lively piece-
counterplay on the kingside as a
compensation for his compro-
mised pawn-chain. 15.tDd2 0-0
(15 ... tDxc4? 16.b3
17.g5!. This is the best way
for White to defend his pawn;
otherwise his whole kings ide
gets weakened after the move 2-
f3. In the game Bologan - Ag-
destein, Erevan 1996, White
brought his knight to the e4-
square, deployed his bishop on e3
and castled long. Then he ex-
ploited Black's weaknesses on
the kingside: 17 ... hxg5 (After
17 ... h5, Black could have closed
the h-file, but he would be left
without any targets for counter-
play.) 1B.hxg5 19. tDa6
20.tDde4 11f3 21.i..e3 tDd7 22.
0-0-0 tDdc5 23.':'h4! l:Ih3 24.tDg3
25.':'xh3
27.a3!+-. Followingb3-b4, Black
would have no active pieces
whatsoever. 27 .. 2B.b4 .txg5
240
29.i..xg5 tDd7
31.t2Jge4 32.tDxd6+
33.f3 34.c5 35.
tDf8
3B.tDce4 tDg6 39.tDg5 40.
41.tDe6+ and Black
resigned.
Black can try the same idea
with: 13 ... tDBd714.i..xg6 fxg6
15.b3 (15. 0-0 16.g5 h5
17.tDd2 tDc5 1B.tDde4) 15 ... 0-0
16.g5 (Now, contrary to the game
Bologan - Agdestein, Erevan
1996, in which Black had coun-
terattacked energetically White's
pawns, the g4-pawn was not un-
der any threat, so it deserved
attention for White to play 16.
.te3;!;; - that move might be use-
ful anyway. In case the black
queen leaves the dB-square -
White can continue even without
the move g4-g5 - the h4-pawn
would not be hanging then and
he can play tDd2-e4 immediately.
Following some waiting move by
Black, White can play g4-g5 and
he would be in a superior situa-
tion in comparison to the game
that we have already analyzed.>
16 ... h5 17.tDd2 tDc5 IB.tDde4
1B ... tDbd719.i..e3
20.0-0. The opponents agreed to
a draw here in the game Balogh
- Laketic, Novi Sad 2003, but
possibly that was at least slightly
premature. White's king is com-
pletely safe and the weakness of
the f5-square is irrelevant. He
can counter Black's play: 20 ...
tDxe4 21.tDxe4 b5, with
preserving a slight advantage.
5.iLe2 e6 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 0.b6 B.ed cd 9.0.c3
14.'l*xd3
14 .. 0.Sd7, Daels - Danneel,
Brugge 1997.
It is hardly advisable for
Black to try here: 14 ... 'l*c7,
Guseinov - Aliev, Baku, 200 l.
The move b2-b3 is an integral
part of White's plan anyway,
while the placement ofthe black
queen on c7 is not so advanta-
geous. 15.b3 0.a6 16.i.e3 0.d7
17.0.d20.ac5 18.'l*e2 0.f6 19.f3
'l*a5 20.l::tc1 l::tc8 2l.i.xc5 'l*xc5
22.0.de4 23.0.xf6+ i.xf6
24.'l*d2 a6 25.0.e4 'l*xd2+ 26.
'itxd2;t and White maintains a
clear positional advantage in the
endgame.
The sharp lines after: 14 ...
'l*c8 15.b3 'l*xg4 (It deserves at-
tention for Black to play here
15 ... 0.a6!?, in order to activate
the knight, ignoring White's
threat to capture the g4-pawn.)
16 . .:tg1 'l*h5 17.l'hg7 f5, bring
success to White: 18.0.b5 'itfB
(18 ... e4 18 ... 0.a6 19.
i.a3 e4 19JIxe7 'itxe7
20.i.a3 e4 (20 ... 11d8 21.0.xe5
0.a6 22.'itd2 0.c5 23.i.xc5 dxc5
24J1e1 +- Lacau Rodean - 10-
nescu, Calimanesti 2000) 21.
It is slightly better for
Black to play: 17 ... 'itfB 18J1g1
11g8 19.11xg8+ 'itxg8 20.0.e4;(;, but
even then he would be in a seri-
ous trouble, because of the vul-
nerability of his king.
There were two games played
in the line: 14 ... 0.a6 15.i.e3. In
the game Lopez Guaita - Pala-
cios Latasa, Aragon 1999, there
followed: 15 ... 0.d7 (15 .. This
maneuver now, just like on
move 14, is not purposeful. 16.b3
0.d7 17.0.d2;t d0.de4 Daels -
Szamos, Tatranske Zruby 2003).
now with: 16. 'l*e2 0.dc5 17.
0-0-0;(;, followed by the standard
maneuver with the knight to the
e4-square and in case Black
castles short - a direct kingside
attack.
15.iLe3 'l*cS 16.0.d2 0.c5
In case of 16 ... 0-0, White
should play 17.g5;t directly.
17.i.xc5
This exchange leaves Black
with a "bad" bishop against
White's knight and it is favour-
able for White as a rule.
17 ... 'l*xc5 IS.b3 0-0
Or 18 ... 0-0 20.g5
241
Chapter 15
'it>h7 'it>h8
19.1bde4
White's queenside has been
weakened by the move b2-b3;
moreover his dark squared
bishop has already been ex-
changed. It is therefore danger-
ous for him to castle long, be-
cause of the possibility a7-a5-a4.
White defends his h4-pawn with
his last move and he prepares
castling short. His king would be
safe there, because Black's pieces
are too passive on that side ofthe
board and his queen is too far
away.
20 . ttJd7 21.0-0 ttJc5
22.g5;J;;.
White maintains the opening
advantage thanks to his extra
space, better pawn-structure and
the control over the all-impor-
tant e4-outpost. The mobility of
the black bishop is quite re-
stricted.
Conclusion
The move 5 ... e6 is considered to be the main line in the system
2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ttJ{3 jLg4 5.i.e2. Black postpones the develop-
ment of his knight on b8 and develops his other pieces instead. Dur-
ing the middle of the 90ies of the last century, there appeared a new
and quite promising line for White - 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 ttJb6 8.exd6 cxd6
9.ttJc3 i.e7, and now 1O.d5!? e5 1l.g4!? jLg6 12.h4. White occupies
plenty of space on the kingside and thus balances Black's pawn-
majority there. On top of everything, White has a wonderful knight
on the e4-outpost.
He achieves all that, by weakening his position a bit indeed, but
it seems like Black's attempts to attack White's c4 and g4-pawns, as
well as the ideas for Black to play e5-e4 and bring his knight to the
d3-square are not good enough for him to equalize. White preserves
superior chances in all variations.
242
Part 4
l.e4 e6 2.d4 without 2 ... d5
Having played the move
1.. .e6, Black has demonstrated
his intention to enter the French
Defence. Indeed, after 2.d4, he
plays 2 ... d5 in 99% of the games
and I recommend to White to fol-
low with 3.tDc3 etc. - you can
study these variations in details
if you read our volume 6.
Black is however under no
obligation to stick to that move
only and he can vary with some-
thing else on his move two. Still,
it is evident that all similar ex-
periments (with the exception of
the move 2 ... c5) would not bring
him any positive results that he
can brag about and all of them
would lead to positions that are
anything else, but French De-
fence. White, of course, would
hardly win the game immedi-
ately, but he will maintain a
great opening advantage and
that is something you can bet on.
243
Chapter 16
l.e4 e6 2.d4
We will deal in this chapter
with some seldom played lines
for Black on move two. They
most often lead to transpositions
to other openings, for example:
2 ... c6 3.ltJc3 d5 (about 3 ... d6
4.f4 - see 2 ... d6 3.ltJc3 c6 4.f4) 4.
ltJf3 - see Book 3, Chapter 5;
2 ... c5 3.ltJf3 - transposes to
the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5
2.ltJf3 e6 3.d4);
2 ... ltJf6 3.e5ltJd5 4.ltJf3 -leads
to the Alekhine Defence (1.e4
ltJf6 2.e5 ltJd5 3.d4 e6?! 4.ltJf3);
About 2 ... a6 3.ltJf3 b5 4.i.d3
i.b7 - see L.a6 2.d4 e6 3.ltJf3;
2 ... b6 3.ltJ3 - see L.b6 2.d4
e63.ltJf3;
2 ... g6?! 3.ltJc3 i.g7 4.h4 - see
page 269, Book 4.
Now, the only possible origi-
nallines arise after the dubious
244
moves: a) 2 . b) 2 ltJe7?!,
c) 2 d6?!, and d) 2 . f5?!. All
these tries by Black do not con-
tribute to the development of his
pieces and the fight for the cen-
tre. In fact, the most reasonable
move among the seldom played
attempts is - e) 2 ltJc6.
a) 2 . 3.ltJf3 d6
3 ... d5 4.ltJc3 - see 2 ... d5 (Book
6); 3 ... ltJf6 4.e5 ltJd5 - see 1.e4
ltJf6.
The move 3 ... a5?! does not
help Black's development and
his fight for the centre Naimsky
- Cerovic, Elancourt 2003, and
after the simple move
White's advantage is more than
obvious.
3 ... c6?! d5 (It is quite
against the opening principles
for Black to play: 4 ... a5? Seifert
- Plietz, Griesheim 2003, 5.0-0;
Black only loses time with the
move: 4 ... c5, Stanning - Petrou,
Box Hill 2001, 5.0-0.) 5.e5 f6
6.0-0 b6 Hermann - Engel-
brecht, Koenigshofen 1999, and
here White's simplest positional
decision is 7 .c4 with a powerful
pressure in the centre.
3 ... b6 4 . .td3 ..ta6, Beier -
Wunder, Schney 1993 (About
4 ... d5 5.lLlc3 - see 2 ... d5; 4 ... .tb7
5.0-0 - see l.e4 b6 2.d4 .tb7
3 . .td3 e6 4.lLlf3 ..te7 5.0-0; 4 ...
lLlc6 5.c3 h6 6.0-0 d6 7.lLlbd2 a6
8. lLlf6 9Jldl Machata -
Benova, Kaskady 2002), after
5.c4 d5 (otherwise the move Ba6
would simply remain a loss of
time) 6.exd5 exd5 7.cxd5 .txd3
8. 9.0-0 lLlf6 10.lLlc3
White maintains a great lead in
development.
4 .td3
4 ... lLlf6
Alack can also try some other
moves:
4 ... b6 5.0-0 .ta6 (5 ... ..tb7 -
see l.e4 b6) 6.c4;
4 ... .td7?! - this is hardly the
best place for Black's bishop. 5.
0-0 lLlc6 6.a3 h6, Besse - Al
Zendani, Bled 2002, and here af-
ter 7.e5 Black has serious prob-
lems to complete his develop-
ment;
In answer to 4 ... lLld7, Thiele
- Craggs, Toronto 1997, White's
simplest line is: 5 . .if4 lLlgf6 6.
0-0 0-0 and he domi-
1.e4 e6 2.d4
nates in the centre with a supe-
rior development;
After 4 ... h6 5.0-0 lLlf6, Schnei-
der - Daguzon, Bad Woerishofen
1992, White maintains his ad-
vantage with practically every
reasonable move, for example: 6.
e5, occupying additional space;
The move 4 ... c5?! - leads ei-
ther to a loss of time, or Black is
left with a passive pawn-struc-
ture: 5.dxc5 (after 5 ... dxc5
6.e5 lLlc6 7.c3 .td7
9.0-0 Black has problems to
obtain any counterplay) 6.lLlc3
7.0-0 lLlf6 8 . .te3 and
White's lead in development is
overwhelming, Balvanyos -
Vereckei, Hungary 1993;
4 ... lLlc6 5.c3 lLlf6, Philip -
Butt, Dubai 1996 (after 5 ... .tf6
Farley - Harewood, Bridgetown
2005, it seems logical for White
to complete his development
with: 6.0-0 lLlge7 7J:te1 lLlg6 8 .
.te3;t and he is dominant in the
centre, while Black would hardly
create any effective counterplay),
6.0-0 0-0 7 . .tf4;t;
4 ... c6 5.0-0 lLld7, Martin -
Carril, Spain 1998, and here
White should better play the
simple: 6.e5, maintaining a
great space advantage, mean-
while Black's light squared
bishop is bound to remain iso-
lated for a long time.
5.0-00-0
Jovkova Draganova - Kostov,
Elenite 1986.
6.e5 dxe5 7.dxe5lLlfd7
Or 7 ... lLld5 8.a3 and White
245
Chapter 16
easily repels Black's knight away
from the centre.
tDc5 9 .1l.c4
White's powerful e5-pawn
provides him with a stable edge.
He enjoys a space advantage and
excellent possibilities for active
play in the centre as well as on
both flanks of the board.
b) 2 tDe7?! 3.tDc3
3 ... d6
Alack has also tried here
some other moves, but his knight
on e7 is so misplaced, since it
hampers the development of his
kingside, that Black's chances to
equalize are just superficial.
About 3 ... d5 4.tDf.3 - see 2 ... d5
(Book 6).
3 ... f5, Heral - A.Anderssen,
Vienna 1873. This move compro-
246
mises Black's kingside and does
not contribute to his develop-
ment. White's most energetic re-
action to it is the move: 4 . .1l.g5!,
making a good use of the fact
that 4 ... h6 leads to a difficult
endgame for Black after: 5.
g6 6 . .1l.xe7 gxh5 7 . .1l.xd8
8.exf5 exf5 9.0-0-0.
3 ... b6 4.f4 g6 (or 4 ... .1l.b7 5.tDf3
g6 5.tDf.3
7.0-0 c6 with a
great advantage for White in the
centre, Petrovic - Cvetkovic,
Belgrade 2003.
Black only loses time with
the following maneuver of the
knight: 3 ... tDg6 tDh4 5.
tDg6 6.e5 Kotncz -
Hoeppner, Hassloch 1999, and
here after the simple line 7.tDf.3,
White maintains an overwhelm-
ing lead in development.
In answer to 3 ... g6, White's
simplest variation is: 4.h4!
5.h5 d5 6.h6 and he
controls completely the dark
squares on the kingside, R.Fi-
scher - Codman, Boston 1964.
4.tDf3
White could have also played
4.f4 and after the logical moves:
4 ... g6 5.tDf.3 there
arises a position, which we have
analyzed extensively in our Book
4, Chapter 24, variation d.
4 ... tDd7
4 ... tDg6, Blodig - Zelmer,
Kaufbeuren 1998. Having played
this compromising move, Black
simply provokes his opponent's
response 5.h4t and White's
kingside initiative is very pow-
erful.
After 4 ... b6 5.i..g5 i..a6 6.
i..xa6lLixa6 7. White's lead
in development is considerable
and he controls the centre com-
pletely, Potthammel - Roth-
sprach, Mecklenburg 1995.
In answer to 4 ... g6, White can
develop a dangerous kingside
initiative with: 5.h4 h6 6.i..e3
i..g7 lLid7 S.h5 g5 9.lLih2
a6 10.0-0-0 b5 l1.f4 gxf4 12.
i..xf4 e5 13.dxe5 lLixe5 14.lLif3
lLixf3 15.gxf3, because his lead
in development is huge and
he dominates in the centre,
A.Potkin - Novotny, Pardubice
2000.
5.i..c4 lLibS S.i..d3 g6
the game Brazdil - Novotny,
Plzen 1999. Black lags in devel-
opment and his kingside has
been compromised. White con-
trols the centre completely and
he leads in development, so he
can easily develop a dangerous
initiative on both sides of the
board with the help of one ofthe
two standard moves: - 7.h4t, or
7.a4t.
1.e4 e6 2.d4
c) 2 .. dS?!
This move is passive indeed,
nevertheless it is solid enough.
3.lLic3
3 . aS
Black continues with his
strange strategy.
His other possibilities are:
3 ... i..e7 4.f4 - see 2 ... i..e7;
3 ... lLie7 4.lLif3, or 4.f4 - see
2 ... lLie7; 3 ... lLic6 4.lLif3 - see L.e6
2.d4lLic6 3.lLif3 d6 4.lLic3); 3 ... lLiffi
4.f4 - see 1.e4 d6 2.d4lLif6 3.lLic3
e6 4.f4 (Book 4, Chapter 2, varia-
tion b);
The strange line: 3 ... d5?!
4.lLif3 transposes to the French
defence, meanwhile Black has
lost an important tempo and that
is doubtlessly quite favourable
for White;
The move 3 ... ffi? - is only com-
promising Black's position sense-
lessly. 4.f4 De Souza - Beraldo,
Pouso Alegre 1997;
3 ... f5?! - weakens the a2-gS
diagonal, as well as a complex
of squares in the centre: 4.exf5
exf5 5.i..c4 6.lLige2 i..e6 7.
d5 Zdravkovic - Mizdalo, Bel-
grade 2003;
3 ... c6?! - is just a strange
247
Chapter 16
move, which does not contribute
to Black's development and it is
quite useless in the fight for the
centre too. Mter the simple re-
sponse 4.f4, White has occupied
plenty of extra space, for ex-
ample: 4 ... lZJf6 i.e7 (about 4 ... g6
5.lZJf3 i.g7 6.i.d3 lZJe7 - see
Chapter 27, Book 4) 6.lZJge2 b5
7.0-00-0 8.e5lZJd5 9.lZJxd5 exd5
10.c3 dxe5 1l.fxe5 g6 12.a4 and
White enjoys a space advantage
and he has excellent prospects to
develop a dangerous initiative on
both sides of the board, Crafty -
Dlugy, Internet 1995;
3 ... i.d7?! - this is an un-
favourable placement for the
black bishop and after White's
logical move 4.f4, Black can
hardly find suitable squares for
the rest of his pieces;
3 ... b6 4.f4 i.b7 5.lZJf3 lZJd7
(about 5 ... lZJe7 6.i.d3 g6 7.0-0 -
see variation dl, Chapter 24,
Book 4) 6.i.d3lZJe7 (6 ... g6 7.0-0
i.g7 8.f5lZJe7 - see line dl, Chap-
ter 24, Book 4; it is too passive
for Black to play: 6 ... i.e7 7.0-0
lZJgf6 Purdon - Jones, Birming-
ham 2001, because after 8.e5
lZJd5 9.lZJxd5 i.xd5 10.c4 i.b7 11.
f5 White's attacking chances
are just excellent) 7.0-0 c5
(7 ... g6, Hieronimus - Robozyt,
Internet 1997, 8.f5! exf5 9.exf5
i.g7 10.i.g5) 8.f5! Todorcevic
- Egido Navarro, Zaragoza 1999;
3 ... g6 4.f4 f6?! - this is a
strange and anti-positional move
(it is better for Black to follow
with 4 ... i.g7 5.lZJf3 - variation d,
248
Chapter 24, Book 4) 5.lZJf3 Ster-
giopoulos - Dermetis, Nikea
2001;
3 ... lZJd7 4.f4lZJe7 (about 4 ... b6
5.lZJf3 i.b7 6.i.d3 - see 3 ... b6;
4 ... t'ih4+?! 5.g3 t'ie7 6.lZJf3 a6
7.i.g2 g6 8.0-0 i.g7 9.f5 Men-
chaca - Frid, Apertura 1997)
5.lZJf3 h6 (5 ... b6 6.i.d3 i.b7 7.
0-0 - see 3 ... b6) 6.i.d3 a6 7.0-0
b5, Kordts - Luebcke, Email
1999 and here White can begin
opening files in the centre quite
favourably with the move 8.f5!.
4.f4
This move provides White
with a space advantage and a
superior development.
4 lZJd7
About 4 ... g6 5.lZJf3 i.g7 6 . .te3
- see Chapter 28, Book 4, 5 ... e6
6.i.e3.
5.lZJf3lZJe7
5 ... .te7 6.i.d3 h6, Ventimiglia
- Rosenstein, Email 1998, 7.0-0
lZJgf6 8.e5.
5 ... h6 6.i.d3 g6 7.0-0 lZJe7, Da
Silva Barbosa - Rosenstein,
Email 2002, White's lead in de-
velopment is huge and he can
now start the standard attack in
this type of positions with the
move: 8 . f 5 ~ .
After 5 ... c5 6.d5 e5 7.a4 t'ia5,
Wiehagen - Radde, Dortmund
2001, there arises a pawn-struc-
ture, which is typical for the
Benoni Defence (1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5),
except that Black has already
lost a tempo (e6-e5) 8.fxe5lZJxe5
(8 ... dxe5 9 . .i.d2) 9.lZJxe5 dxe5
10.i.d2 and White's superior
pawn-structure and his domi-
nance in the centre provide him
with a stable edge.
6.ii.d3 ttJg6
the game Huang - Mejico, Sin-
gapour 2004. Black's lag in de-
velopment is so great that White
should better start some decisive
actions with: 7.f5! exf5 (or
7 ... ttJe7 8.fxe6 fxe6 9.ttJg5 ttJf6
10.e5+-; 7 ... ttJh4 8.fxe6 fxe6 9.
O-O) 8.exf5 ttJe7 9.'l*e2 and
Black is already beyond salva-
tion.
d) 2 ... f5?!
This strange move is some-
how fighting for the centre; nev-
ertheless Black compromises his
kingside, some squares on the e-
file and the a2-g8 diagonaL
1.e4 e6 2.d4
3.exf5 exf5
After 3 ... ttJf6 4.fxe6 d5 5 . .id3
Kulbacki - Ball, Lansing 1988,
Black's compensation for the sac-
rificed pawn is evidently insuffi-
cient.
4.ii.d3 g6
Alack can tried here some
other moves too:
4 ... 'l*f6 5.ttJf3 ttJc6 6.c3 d6,
Graetz - Winkelmann, Germany
2000 and after the natural move
7.0-0, White leads in develop-
ment and he can easily proceed
with active actions in the centre
as well as on the queenside;
4 ... d5 5.ttJf3 ttJf6 6.0-0 i.e7
(White maintains a powerful
pressure in the centre too after:
6 ... ii.d6 7.c4 c6 8.ttJc3 0-0 9 . .ig5
Gunter-Benson, StHelier 1999)
7.c4 c6 8.ttJc3 0-0 Black's
position remains extremely dif-
ficult, due to his lag in develop-
ment and his weak central
squares, for example: 9 ... De
la Rosa - Sauvin, Switzerland
1993, (Black's attempt to consoli-
date on the e4-outpost led to a
swift disaster after: 9 ... ttJe4?
10.cxd5 ttJxc3 1l.dxc6+ 1-0, in
the game Keserovic - Gansl-
mayer, Bad Woerishofen 2001;
it is also too bad for Black to
try: 9 ... dxc4 10.i.xc4+ ..t>h8 II.
ttJe5, because he can hardly pre-
serve the material equilibrium,
Da Cruz - Zampronio, Santos
2001) and now Black is bound to
face serious problems after the
simple move for ex-
ample: 10 ... 'l*xb3 1l.axb3 .id6
249
Chapter 16
(or 11 ... .ltb4 12 . .ltd2 and White
preserves a huge lead in devel-
opment and numerous threats)
12.cxd5 cxd5 13.ltJxd5 and
White wins a pawn;
4 ... d6 5.c4 ltJf6 6.ltJc3 ltJc6 (it
is hardly better for Black to try
6 ... .lte7 7. tH3 g6 8.ltJge2 c6,
Nordstrom - Appelquist, corr.
1967, because after 9.0-0 White
remains with a space advantage
and he dominates on the only
open file) 7.ltJge2 .lte7 8.0-0
Ljubojevic - Dolezal, Prague
1990.
5.ltJf3 fte7+
This move even contributes
to Black's lag in development. It
is not any better for him to try
either: 5 ... .ltg7 6.0-0 ltJe7 7 J:te1
0-0 8 . .ltg5 ltJbc6 9.d5 Garcia
Galeote - Guillen Andrinal,
Madrid 2002, or 5 ... ltJf6 6.0-0
ltJc6 7.iog5 iog7 8Jie1+ ltJe7 9.
fte2. White's lead in develop-
ment is overwhelming, Anya Sun
- Neo Xiu, Kuala Lumpur 200l.
6.'iitf1!?
This is White's most energetic
decision, although it is quite good
enough for him to follow with the
simple move: 6 . .lte2.
6 . ltJf6 7.ltJc3 i.g7
250
8 . .ltg5 c6 9.ftd2 0-0 IOJ::tel
ftd8 1l.h4 d6 1 2 . h 5 ~ Svesh-
nikov - Trajkovic, Pula 1990. All
White's pieces are in action,
while Black's queenside is just
''napping''.
e) 2 ltJc6 3.ltJf3
3 . d6
In case of 3 ... d5 4.ltJc3 - see
Book 6, Chapter 2 (1...e6 2.d4 d5
3.ltJc3 ltJc6 4.ltJf3).
After 3 ... ltJf6 4.e5 ltJd5 (It is
bad for Black to play 4 ... ltJg4 -
since he loses important tempi
and his pawn-structure gets
compromised by force: 5.h3ltJh6
6 . .ltxh6 gxh6 7.ltJc3 d6 8 . .ltb5
.ltd7 9.fte2; 7 ... f5 8.d5!; 7 ... d5
8 . .ltd3; 7 ... .ltb4 8.ftd2 Lor -
Vio, Email 1999.) after 5.c4, the
arising positions are much more
typical for the Alekhine Defence
- see l.e4 ltJf6 2.e5 ltJd5 3.d4 e6
4.ltJf3ltJc6 5.c4.
4.ltJc3 ltJf6
Black are:
4 ... d5?! leads to lines similar
to the variation: 2 ... d5 3.ltJc3
ltJc6, except that White has an
extra tempo.
4 ... g6?! (Black's
defence is quite difficult after:
5 ... liJce7 7.
6 ... 7 because White's
lead in development is consider-
able.) 6.d5 Barrasso - Goodson,
Email 1999;
4 .... h6 i.d7, Schulz -
Meierhofer, Internet 2001 and
here it seems quite logical for
White to occupy some additional
space with the help of: 6.d5 exd5
7.ed liJe5 8.i.xd7+ 'i;i'xd7 9.0-0.
4 ... 5.i.c4 liJf6, Zippy -
Arnaque, Internet 1994. Black's
light squared bishop is quite mis-
placed - it stands in the way of
his own pieces and White should
better open files with the natu-
ral reaction: 6.e5 dxe5 7.dxe5
liJg4 8. 'i;i'e2;
4 ... liJge7, Raffalt - Koelldor-
fer, Graz 1991. Now after: 5.d5
liJe5 (it is worse for Black to play
5 ... exd5 6.exd5 liJe5 7.i.e2)
6.liJxe5 dxe5 7.i.b5+! c6 (The
endgame is very difficult for
Black after: 7 ... i.d7 8.dxe6.)
8.dxc6 9.liJxd1 liJxc6 10.
liJe3, White's pawn-structure is
much better and it provides him
with a stable advantage;
4 ... a6
bxc6 7.0-0 liJf6 8.e5 liJd5, Ball-
hause - Brandes, Germany 1999.
Black's pawn-mass in the centre
is quite static and his own bish-
ops are ineffective because of
that. White should better empha-
size his advantage by centraliz-
ing his pieces with: 9.liJe4 0-0
10.c4;
l.e4 e6 2.d4
4 ... a6 Dudine -
Rozmann, Trieste 2004 (5 ... liJb4
7.0-0 Ricardi-
Monaco, Buenos Aires 1991.
White's simplest way to main-
tain his edge is by occupying
space with: 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5
'i;i'xd1 10Jhd1 Af-
ter 5 ... h6 6.0-0 e5, King_Lee -
Taoyang, Internet 1999, it seems
advisable for White to follow
with: 7.d5liJce7 8.liJe2liJf6 9.c4
and he leads in development and
his plan to seize the initiative on
the queenside is quite clear-cut;
Black should better not try to
change the pawn-structure after:
8 ... f5 9.exf5 liJf6 10.tZ'lg3 liJexd5
11.I:te1 12.liJh4) 6.0-0 liJf6
7.e5! tZ'ld5 (it is even worse for
Black to try 7 ... dxe5?! 8.dxe5
liJg4, because of 9. and
Black cannot capture the e5-
pawn with: 9 ... tZ'ld4? 10.liJxd4
'i;i'xd4, since after 11.I:td1 +- he
loses material) 8.exd6
(8 ... 'i;i'xd6 9.liJe4 'i;i'd8 10.c4) 9.
liJe4 10.a3 and White's ad-
vantage is quite stable due to his
extra space.
5.d5
This is White's most energetic
reply.
5 ... exd5
After 5 ... liJb8, White's sim-
plest line is: 6.dxe6 (6 ...
fxe6?! 7.e5 liJfd7
'i;i'xe7 10.exd6 cxd6 11.
liJb5) 7.liJg5!, and now in case
Black complies with the ex-
change on the e6-square, White
remains with a stable advantage,
251
Chapter 16
because of his bishop pair. The
retreat for Black: 7 ... iJ..d7 is im-
possible due to 8.iJ..c4. In case of
7 ... iJ..g4 8.3 iJ..h5, it seems very
reasonable for White to continue:
9.lLlh3, with the idea to follow
later with lLlf4. His further plans
include castling long and a pawn-
offensive on the kingside.
6.exd5 lLle5
It is hardly any better for
Black to play: 6 ... lLle7 7.3Lb5+
iJ..d7 8.iJ..xd7+ 9 . .i.e3
10.lLld4 11. lLlfxd5 12.
13. because
White's development is clearly
superior and Black's king is quite
unsafe. White's prospects as a
result are much better, Dorkus
- Hellas, Internet 1998.
7.iJ..b5+ iJ..d7
Mter 7 ... c6 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.
lLlxe5 cxb5 10.lLlc6, Black's
problems with the coordination
of his pieces are quite obvious
after: 10 ... (or 10 ... "ific7)
11. because he has to find
a way to evacuate his king away
from the centre, otherwise he
loses his b5-pawn: 11. ..
12.lLlb4.
9.iJ..xd7+ lLlexd7
10.iJ..e3 0-0-0 1l.h3 l:.e8 12.
0-0-0 lLle4
the game Eggerer - Kleiner,
Bayern 1999. White's advantage
could have been emphasized best
with: (It is clearly
worse for Black to play: 13 ... a6
14.:hel and White's lead in
development is overwhelming, or
13 ... 14.iJ..xa7+! 15.
16.lLlxe4lLlb6
lLlxd5 - Black loses after: 17 ...

19. and White remains
with a solid extra pawn and a
superior development.)
15.Ithel. Black's defence
is extremely difficult due to his
non-developed kingside.
Conclusion
The lines, which we have analyzed in this chapter, are very sel-
dom played. Black has great problems in comparison to the stan-
dard lines of the French Defence. It is quite enough for White to make
natural and simple moves, developing pieces and occupying the cen-
tre, in order to maintain an overwhelming advantage.
252
Index of Variations
Part 1. l.e4 various; 1. .. a6 2.d4; 1. .. b6 2.d4 ............. 9
Chapter 1 l.e4
various .............................................. 10
I. .. a6 2.d4 various ..................................... 12
1...a6 2.d4 h5 3.lLlf3 .ih7 4 . .id3 ........................... 14
a) 4 . .id3lLlffi ....................... 15
h) 4 . .id3 e6 ........................ 17
Chapter 2 l.e4 b6 2.d4
various .............................................. 24
2 ... .ih7 3 . .id3 various .................................. 27
a) 3 ... lLlffi ....................................... 30
h) 3 ... e6 4.lLlf3 ................................... 34
hI) 4.lLlf3 h6 ............................... 34
h2) 4.lLlf3lLlc6 ............................... 35
h3) 4.lLlf3 .ie7 ............................... 36
h4) 4.lLlf3lLle7 ............................... 37
h5) 4.lLlf3 g6 ................................ 38
h6) 4.lLlf3 d6 ................................ 39
h7) 4.lLlf3 d5 ................................ 42
h8) 4.lLlf3lbffi ............................... 45
Chapter 3 l.e4 b6 2.d4 .ib7 3 . .td3 e6 4.lLlf3 e5 5.e3
various .............................................. 47
5 ... lLlffi 6 : ~ e 2 various .................................. 51
a) 6. t'te2 d5 ...................................... 53
h) 6.t'te2 cd 7.cd various .......................... 56
hI) 7.cd.ib4 ............................. 58
h2) 7 .cd lLlc6 ............................. 59
c) 6.t'te2 .ie7 7.0-0 various ......................... 61
cl) 7.0-0 cd ............................. 62
c2) 7.0-0 d6 ............................. 63
c3) 7.0-0 lbc6 ............................ 64
c4) 7.0-00-0 ............................. 65
c5) 7.0-0 d5 ............................. 66
253
Index of Variations
Part 2. 1.e4CL\c6 2.CL\f3 .......................... 71
Chapter 4 l.e4 CL\c6 2.CL\f3
a) 2 ... lbf6 ............................................... 72
b) 2 ... f5 ............................................... 73
Chapter 5 l.e4 lbc6 2.lbf3 d5 3.exd5 x d 5 4.lbc3
various .............................. '" ............ 77
4 ... a 5 5.i..b5 various .................................. 80
a) 4 .. ~ a 5 5.i..b5 i..d7 6.0-0 lbf6 ............................ 81
b) 6.0-0 e6 .............................. 83
e) 6.0-0 a6 .............................. 84
d) 6.0-00-0-0 ............................ 86
Chapter 6 l.e4 CL\c6 2.lbf3 g6 3.d4
a) 3 ... d6 ................................................ 88
b) 3 ... i..g7 .................................. " ............. 94
Chapter 7 l.e4 lbc6 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4
a) 3 ... i..g4 ............................................... 96
b) 3 ... f5 ............................................... 99
e) 3 ... ttJf6 4.CL\e3 various .................................. 100
el) 4.CL\e3 i..g4 5.i..e3 d5 ............................. 104
e2) 5.i..e3 e5 ............................. 105
e3) 5.i..e3 g6 ............................. 106
e4) 5.i..e3 a6 ............................. 109
e5) 5.i..e3 e6 ............................. 110
Part 3. 1.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 ............... 116
Chapter 8 l.e4 CL\f6 2.e5
2 ... ttJg8 ............................................... 118
Chapter 9 l.e4 CL\f6 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4
various ............................................. 125
a) 3 ... e6 ............................................... 126
b) 3 ... d6 4.CL\f3 various .................................... 130
b1) 4.CL\f3 e6 ........................................ 131
b2) 4.lbf3 i..f5 ....................................... 133
b3) 4.CL\f3 ttJb6 ....................................... 136
254
Index of Variations
Chapter 10 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3lbc6 5.c4 tbb6 6.e6
6 ... fXe6 7.tbc3 ......................................... 140
a) 7.tbc3 e5 ..................... " ................ 141
b) 7.tbc3 g6 ...................................... 144
Chapter 11 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 lbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 dxe5 5.tbxe5
various ............................................. 150
a) 5 ... tbd7 .............................................. 150
b) 5 ... e6 ............................................... 154
c) 5 ... c6 6 . .lte2 ........................................... 155
c1) 6 . .lte2 .ltf5 ....................................... 156
c2) 6 . .lte2 g6 ....................................... 157
c3) 6 . .lte2 tbd7 ....................................... 158
d) 5 ... g6 6.g3 .ltf5 ........................................ 161
d1) 6.g3 tbd7 ....................................... 161
d2) 6.g3 .ltg7 ....................................... 163
Chapter 12 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 g6 5 . .ltc4
various ............................................. 168
a) 5 ... c6 ............................................... 170
b) 5 ... tbb6 6 . .ltb3 various .................................. 178
b1) 6 . .ltb3 d5 ...................................... 179
b2) 6 . .ltb3 tbc6 .................................... 183
b3) 6 . .ltb3 .ltg7 .................................... 186
Chapter 13 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 .tg4 5 . .te2
various ............................................. 199
5 ... tbc6 6.0-0 various ................................... 204
a) 6.0-0 tbb6 ................................... 207
b) 6.0-0 dxe5 ................................... 209
c) 6.0-0 e6 ..................................... 213
Chapter 14 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 .tg4 5 .te2 c6 6.c4
various ............................................. 219
6 ... tbb6 7.tbbd2 various ................................. 221
a) 7.tbbd2 tb8d7 ................................. 222
b) 7.tbbd2 dxe5 ................................. 227
Chapter 15 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5lbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 .tg4 5 . .te2 e6 6.h3
various ............................................. 233
6 ... .th5 7.c4 ttJb6 ...................................... 234
255
Index of Variations
Part 4. l.e4 e6 2.d4 without d7-dS ......................... 243
Chapter 16 l.e4 e6 2.d4
a) 2 ... ..te7 ............................................... 244
b) 2 ... lDe7 ............................................... 246
c) 2 ... d6 ............................................... 247
d) 2 ... 5 ............................................... 249
e) 2 ... lDc6 ............................................... 250

Opening For White According To Anand 1.e4, Vol. 5

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Opening For White According To Anand 1.e4, Vol. 5

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Opalill

S-ar putea să vă placă și